Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of York, West Riding (Ripon Division), in the room of Major the right hon. John Waller Hills, deceased.—[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

ALL HALLOWS LOMBARD STREET BILL,

"to confer upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and other persons powers with reference to the churchyards appurtenant to the Church of All Hallows Lombard Street in the City of London; to provide for the extinguishment of rights of way and other rights over or in respect of certain lands; to empower the said Commissioners to sell the said lands; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

BRISTOL WATERWORKS BILL,

"to authorise the Bristol Waterworks Company to construct new works and to raise additional capital; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

COLNE VALLEY WATER BILL,

"to authorise the Colne Valley Water Company to construct new works and to raise additional capital; to extend the limits of supply of the Company; to make better provision with respect to the repair and maintenance of communication pipes; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

DOVER COAL DUES (ABOLITION) BILL,

"to abolish certain duties on coals imported and brought into and landed or delivered within the Town and Port of Dover; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

EXETER EXTENSION BILL,

"to extend the boundaries of the city and county of the city of Exeter; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

JARROW CORPORATION BILL,

"to enlarge the powers of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Jarrow with respect to the acquisition development and disposal of lands; to make further and better provision for the economic development and improvement of the Borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL,

"to establish a Superannuation Fund for certain of the staff of the London and North Eastern Railway Company; to provide that payments thereout shall not be assignable or chargeable; to provide for winding up the affairs of Thompson McKay and Company Limited; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL,

"to empower the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company to acquire lands; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL,

"to empower the London Passenger Transport Board to provide certain services of trolley vehicles; to construct new works; to acquire lands; and to raise additional moneys; to extend the time for the compulsory purchase of certain lands and the completion of certain works; to confer further powers on the Board including powers as to the running of public service vehicles; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON RATING (SITE VALUES) BILL,

"to provide for the rating of the annual site value of land in the administrative county of London; and for purposes connected therewith," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

MARYPORT HARBOUR BILL,

"to make provision in regard to the finances of the Commissioners for the Harbour of Maryport; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

NEWQUAY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL,

"to empower the Newquay and District Water Company to construct further works; to confer further powers upon the Company; to cancel the notice given by the Company to the Wadebridge Rural District Council in pursuance of Section 40 of the Wadebridge Rural District Council Act, 1937, and to repeal the said section; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL,

"to confer further powers on, and to change the name of, the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SAINT NICHOLAS MILLBROOK (SOUTH- AMPTON) CHURCH (SALE) BILL,

"to provide for the pulling down of the Church of Saint Nicholas Millbrook in the County Borough of Southampton for the sale of the same and the site and churchyard thereof and the use of such site and churchyard for building or otherwise; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL,

"to authorise the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Sheffield to construct street improvements and water works to provide accommodation for public service and other vehicles and to acquire lands for these and other purposes; to use compulsorily certain lands; to confer further powers upon the Corporation with regard to their waterworks undertaking; to make provision for the protection of the gathering grounds of their waterworks undertaking; to enact provisions with respect to the licensing and insurance of window cleaners; to amend the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925; to make further provision with regard to the health improvement local government and finance of the City; and for other purposes," presented, and read

the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL,

"to authorise the South Staffordshire Waterworks Company to construct new works; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL,

"to empower the Southern Railway Company to construct works and to acquire lands; to extend the time for the completion of a railway and the compulsory purchase of certain lands; to confer further powers on the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

STALYBRIDGE HYDE MOSSLEY AND DUKIN- FIELD TRANSPORT AND ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL,

"to authorise the Stalybridge Hyde Mossley and Dukinfield Transport and Electricity Board to acquire by agreement from the Urban Electric Supply Company Limited the undertaking authorised by the Glossop Corporation Electric Lighting Order 1899; to enter into agreements with the Central Electricity Board in regard to the terms and conditions applicable to the supply of electricity to the undertaking after its acquisition by the Board; to extend the area of supply of electricity of the Board; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL,

"to empower the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Sunderland to appropriate the open space known as the West Park to the purposes of a civic centre and to construct upon the West Park and lands adjacent thereto a town hall and municipal and other buildings and to acquire lands compulsorily for those purposes; to authorise the abolition of the Corporation's market at High Street East and to appropriate the site thereof for other purposes; to make further provision with regard to the health and good government of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

TIVERTON CORPORATION BILL,

"to empower the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Tiverton to construct waterworks; to confer further powers upon them with respect to their water undertaking; to make further and better provision with respect to the health local government improvement and finance of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL,

"to authorise the purchase of lands by the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Walsall; to vest in them the common known as 'elves Green'; and to make further provision with regard to their electricity, gas and other undertakings and the health local government and improvement of the borough and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time.

WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL,

"to confer further powers on the River Wear Commissioners and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

WILLENHALL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,

"to make further and better provision for the improvement health and local government of the Urban District of Willenhall; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WINTER ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Labour whether an instruction has been given to officers of the Unemployment Assistance Board directing that additional winter allowances shall only be given in cases where 50 per cent. or more of the income of the applicant is derived from the Unemployment Assistance Board?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): As I informed the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) on 1st December last, a copy of the instruction issued by the Board has been placed in the Library and I would refer the hon. Member to it. Although under that instruction attention is to be particularly directed to households where not less than one-half of the total income is represented by the allowance from the Board, it is laid down that all cases are to be considered upon their merits. In fact, winter additions have been made in a large number of cases where the proportion which the Board's allowance bears to the total household income is less than 50 per cent.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Labour the number of applications for winter allowances made at the Blaenavon, Pontypool, and Pontnewydd Employment Exchanges, and the number granted, together with the total cost, at each?

Mr. Brown: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the instruction relating to winter adjustments, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House, from which it will be seen that separate application for such adjustments is not necessary; no information is available as to the extent to which such applications have in fact been made. With regard to the second part, I regret that information relating to Employment Exchange areas is not available, but I will forward to the hon. Member figures based on the Board s administrative areas which I hope will serve his purpose.

STORNOWAY.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed men were sent during the past year from Stornoway Employment Exchange to road work on the mainland?

Mr. E. Brown: During the past year, 144 men were placed in road employment on the mainland by the Stornoway Employment Exchange. In addition, five men were placed in such work in the Isle of Skye.

Mr. MacMillan: In view of the great deal of road work that remains to be done in these islands, would the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the


Minister of Transport and to the county council in order to get the work done there before exporting the workers to the mainland?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is making a rather large assertion. I suggest that he applies first of all to the county council, since he appears to be in possession of all the facts.

ELDERLY PERSONS.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether he intends to take further measures to deal with the problem of unemployed persons of 45 Nears of age and over; and whether he will give particulars of the measures he proposes to take?

Mr. E. Brown: The problem of the older unemployed is still engaging my attention and I have every hope that the improvement to which I drew attention on 18th July last will be continued. Since that date, the International Labour Office have produced most interesting material bearing on this problem as it exists in other countries, and I have asked the British Government delegate at the present meeting of the governing body to urge that the inquiry should be pursued and to promise this Government's co-operation. It seems necessary to study this problem in its widest implications and to draw on all possible sources of knowledge and experience to arrive at a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Griffiths: Since it is about 18 months ago that the right hon. Gentleman gave a definite promise that measures would be taken by him or by the Government to deal with this question, are we to gather from the nature of his reply this afternoon that the Government have no proposals whatever?

Mr. Brown: On the contrary. I have many times since that time pointed out that we have taken most effective action in many areas, and that the problem differs in different areas and various industries. There is no general solution, but if the hon. Member will look at the comparative figures he will see what progress has been made in many areas.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will local National Service work be available for these people?

Mr. Paling: Has the Minister consulted with the Minister for War, who told us that he had adopted a policy in relation to the older men?

Mr. Brown: I heard the answer referred to, but I did not gather that conclusion.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Has the Minister taken any steps to ensure that opportunity to do the work provided by the Government in these distressed areas will be offered preferentially to men over 45 years of age?

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Member knows, the Exchanges work on the basis of the best available man being provided for the job; otherwise our work would be impossible. Subject to that, every effort is made and will be made to find jobs for older men.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that Government Departments are dismissing men on account of their reaching 60 years of age and that they are thereby adding to this problem; and will he attempt to get this practice stopped?

NORTH-WEST DURHAM.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Labour whether steps are being taken for the establishment of a trading estate in North-west Durham; and whether he is aware of any new industry likely to be located in that area?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) on 24th November, in which I stated that in view of the action taken at Team Valley, Pallion and St. Helen Auckland, it was not proposed to establish another trading estate in Durham.

Mr. Adams: Can the Minister give any answer to the second part of my question.

Mr. Brown: I have already pointed out the answer.

Mr. Adams: On a point of Order. The second part of my question asked whether any new industry was likely to be located in that area, and the Minister has not replied.

Mr. Brown: I was asked whether any new trading estate was proposed to be established, and I have said "No."

BUILDING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Joel: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made with the evolution of an improved scheme for providing building trade operatives with unemployment pay during bad weather when work is not possible?

Mr. E. Brown: The National Joint Council for the Building Industry in England and Wales recently submitted for my consideration, under Section 72 (2) (c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, a scheme for insuring insured persons in the building industry against unemployment due to inclement weather. Notice of the receipt of this scheme was given in the London Gazette on 2nd December and in the daily and trade Press on the nearest subsequent date, and observations were invited from persons affected, who were able to obtain copies of the scheme from the Department on request. Numerous observations have been received, which I am now considering in order that I may arrive at a decision as to whether the introduction of the proposed scheme is practicable and expedient. To assist me in arriving at a decision on this point I hope shortly to arrange for an informal inquiry to be held. I should add that it may be necessary to extend the provisions of Section 72 of the 1935 Act before the scheme submitted could be brought into operation.

Mr. Mander: As these negotiations have been going on for a long time, can the Minister say when he hopes to get a result from them?

UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour the income and expenditure of the Unemployment Fund for September and December last; and whether the fund shows a loss or surplus for the year ending December, 1938?

Mr. E. Brown: The approximate total income and expenditure of the Unemployment Fund in September and December, 1938, were as follow:




Four weeks to 24th September, 1938.
Five weeks to 31st December, 1938.




£
£


Income
…
4,764,000
6,286,000


Expenditure
…
4,849,000
6,734,000


As regards the second part of the question, the financial condition of the fund at

31st December, 1938, is now under the consideration of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee, who will make their statutory report to me not later than the end of this month.

BENEFIT (HOLIDAYS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour why persons who signed on regularly were paid for Monday, 26th, and Tuesday, 27th December; and why a man who signed on at the Exchange for less than 12 days before the holiday was refused holiday payment?

Mr. E. Brown: Benefit in respect of holidays is payable to claimants who have been finally discharged from their employment, but not to persons who have been temporarily suspended for a period of less than 12 consecutive days, exclusive of the holidays.

Mr. Thorne: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is the consequence of the very bad weather we had during the Christmas period and that thousands of people in the building trades are now deprived of employment?

Mr. Brown: That is a decision of the Umpire and I have no power whatever to interfere with it. I have a report given to me by the Unemploymnt Statutory Committee on the whole question of holidays, and it is proposed to introduce legislation shortly.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not possible for the individuals concerned to appeal, even now?

Mr. Brown: I assume that the cases referred to by the hon. Member are on all fours with the others. This is a decision of the umpire, under the law, and I have no power to intervene.

Oral Answers to Questions — FILM INDUSTRY (EMPLOYES' CONDITIONS).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now completed the inquiries he instituted into the working conditions of the employés engaged in the cinematograph industry; and what further action he now proposes to take?

Mr. E. Brown: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, as I have stated previously, a number of agreements


have been made for various districts, and discussions relating to other districts are still proceeding. The services of my Department are at all times available to render such assistance as may be possible and desired.

Mr. Day: What arrangements, if any, are made for the small exhibitors who own only one small hall and are not members of any association?

Mr. Brown: That is a question which should like to see on the Paper. The hon. Member will appreciate that in all industrial matters we prefer to proceed by way of collective agreements between representative bodies of employers and employed.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister not aware that some of the conditions are scandalous and that this matter is being neglected?

Mr. Brown: I am sure that we are proceeding in the most effective way to get a remedy for the defects that we want remedied. A number of agreements have already been made and others are now in process of negotiation. That, in my judgment, is the best way of proceeding.

Mr. Ede: Can the Minister give any estimate of the proportion of people in this industry who are now covered by agreements?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Mr. Day: Is the Minister not going to take further action?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member should see what I have said. We are always at the disposal of the industry. As the House knows, it is better for the men and the employers' organisations concerned to seek voluntary agreement than for the Ministry to intervene, and perhaps do more harm than good.

Mr. Day: How can that apply to cases where the people concerned do not belong to any association?

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS CYLINDERS (BUTANE).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the investigation carried out by the chief

inspector of explosives in relation to the vessels which contain a gas known as butane supplied for domestic use is now completed; and what steps have been taken to see that the vessels comply with the necessary standards of safety?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): The general question of the design and specification of cylinders for liquifiable and other gases has been referred to a committee appointed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Pending the report of this committee, no regulations have been made to cover the conveyance of cylinders containing butane, but His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Explosives has been in close touch with the firms who supply and distribute this gas, and the cylinders now being used appear to be satisfactory for the purpose.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether a report is expected on this very important matter?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir; I could not say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — COCK-FIGHTING.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Home Secretary how many complaints were received during 1938 regarding alleged cock-fighting; how many of these complaints were investigated; and in how many cases prosecutions took place?

Sir S. Hoare: I would refer to the reply given to a similar question put by the hon. and learned Member on 14th July last. No subsequent complaints have been received at the Home Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUNKENNESS.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Home Secretary whether he has now completed his consideration regarding the causes of the increase in the number of convictions for drunkenness since 1932; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. The preliminary consideration which has been given to possible lines of inquiry indicates that account may have to be taken of many factors, and that I am not likely to be able to make any statement at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Home Secretary how many refugees have been admitted to England since the 30th September last; and what proportion of this number are by race Aryan and what proportion Jewish?

Sir S. Hoare: Since 30th September, approximately 6,000 refugees from Germany have been admitted to the United Kingdom. In this country there is no official system of classifying people by race or religion.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that during the same period a considerable number of Nazi Germans have returned to Germany, and are daily returning?

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary, concerning child refugees from Germany, why guarantee forms are no longer available at the Inter-Aid Department; whether the Home Office have changed the rules about such guarantees; and if so, is it to be made more difficult to save these children?

Sir S. Hoare: There has been no change in the Home Office rules, and the Home Office has done nothing to make it more difficult to bring child refugees to this country. 2,400 children have already been admitted under the special arrangements made with the Movement for the Care of Children from Germany, and other parties are expected. I understand, however, that the extent to which the Movement can undertake responsibility for further numbers of children and the rapidity with which arrangements can be made for their admission must depend on the number of offers they receive to provide homes and help for such children.

Colonel Wedgwood: Does it not depend also upon money being available from the Baldwin Fund? Is not that fund available for these children? And why is one unable at the present moment to get these gurantee forms?

Sir S. Hoare: I will look into the last point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. As to the Baldwin Fund, I, of course, have no responsibility for it, and I do not know anything of the details regarding it.

Colonel Wedgwood: Who is responsible? Is there anyone here to answer?

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary why Lord Baldwin's Fund for refugees is not being used to provide guarantees for those persecuted people who have no friends here able to give guarantees, more particularly for men in concentration camps who might be let out if they could get a British visa?

Sir S. Hoare: Decisions as to how the fund shall be used are matters for the trustees, and I have no doubt that the arrangements they are making will secure that the best possible use shall be made of the money available for assisting refugees.

Colonel Wedgwood: Seeing that very large funds have been raised for this purpose, is there any means of getting anyone on the Front Bench to answer for the trustees, as the matter is one of public importance?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, I certainly do not think that any answer could be given from this Bench, as no Minister is responsible in any way, directly or indirectly.

Colonel Wedgwood: Who is responsible?

Sir S. Hoare: The trustees.

Sir Joseph Nall: Have the Charity Commissioners any control in this matter?

Sir S. Hoare: I have no more knowledge than my hon. Friend has.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE PROTECTION (RESEARCH).

Mr. Lewis: asked the Home Secretary whether since the passing of the Fire Brigades Act, 1938, any approach has been made by his Department to the fire insurance companies with a view to ascertaining whether they would he willing to make a voluntary contribution to the cost of research into fire-fighting problems?

Sir S. Hoare: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made in this House on behalf of the Government on 27th July last, during the final stages of the Fire Brigades Bill, to the effect that the insurance interests have already undertaken to make a payment of £600,000 to be allocated as the Government may decide. Of this contribution, approximately £317,000 has already been


disbursed to eight local authorities in pursuance of arrangements made while the Fire Brigades Bill was before Parliament. The balance of the £600,000 will be received from the insurance interests in the course of the next 18 months, and will be available for purposes of general benefit to the Fire Service, including research into fire fighting problems. As stated in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge) on 15th December last, preliminary discussions have taken place regarding the arrangements for the establishment of a fire research centre.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMB EXPLOSIONS.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary what steps he is taking to stop Irish enemies of this country from blowing up or damaging British property; and, in particular, will he take steps to acquire powers to deport those Irish who do damage here or become a charge on public funds in this country?

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Home Secretary whether he can make a statement upon the recent bomb outrages directed against important points on the public electricity supply systems; and whether adequate protective measures have been, and will continue to be, taken to frustrate any further similar outrages, in view of the special importance of maintaining power supply to factories at the present time?

Sir S. Hoare: As a result of inquiries undertaken by the police in connection with the explosions which occurred on 16th January, 33 persons have been arrested and have been charged with various offences relating to explosive substances and firearms. As the cases are sub judice, I am unable to make any further statement at the moment beyond saying that the police are continuing their inquiries and taking all steps possible to prevent further outrages. The suggestion that our laws should be altered so as to enable British subjects to be deported from the United Kingdom raises general issues of far-reaching importance which cannot properly be dealt with by means of question and answer.

Mr. Petherick: With regard to the last part of Question No. 21, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is highly

inconsistent to desire to deport Irishmen who become a charge on British funds while allowing large numbers of foreign refugees to come to this country?

Mr. Gallacher: Would it not be very desirable, in order to eliminate any further possibility of trouble, to abolish partition and allow Ireland to become, as it should be, a united country?

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMON INFORMERS.

Mr. Silkin: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to two actions which recently came before the High Court brought by a common informer, Green, for penalties; that in each case when the proceedings came before the Court the common informer discontinued, allowing judgment to go against him with costs; that this same common informer has brought numerous other similar actions; that he is without the means to pay any costs that may be awarded against him and that these actions constitute a form of blackmail; and, in view of the undesirability of these practices being allowed to continue, what steps he proposes taking in the matter?

Sir S. Hoare: I have seen reports in the Press of the cases to which the hon. Member refers. The matter can only be dealt with by legislation, and, as I informed the hon. Member in reply to his question on 1st December last, it is already the practice, when Statutes which authorise the payment of penalties to the informer are brought under review by amending legislation, to substitute penalty provisions in modern form.

Mr. R. Gibson: What is the procedure when a common informer is an undischarged bankrupt? Is he under an obligation to find security for costs?

Sir S. Hoare: I could not answer that question without notice, but I think it would be a question for the Attorney-General, and not for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIFT ACCIDENT, CHELSEA.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with a lift accident in a house at Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, on


18th January; and what was the cause of the lift failing.

Sir S. Hoare: I understand that the incident referred to occurred in a private dwelling house, where the lift, which was electrically driven, stopped between two floors when a servant was travelling in it. She was alone in the house and was not released until the housekeeper returned home and obtained assistance from the police. The lift company's staff attributed the stopping of the lift to failure of the electricity supply.

Mr. Thorne: Is there any possibility in the near future of giving local authorities the right to inspect lifts of this kind throughout the country?

Sir S. Hoare: If the hon. Member will put that question down, I will give him an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.

Mr. Leach: asked the Home Secretary whether in view of the fact that particulars of experiments on living animals performed during the previous year are received at the Home Office within the first fortnight of January, he will give instructions that the annual return of such experiments is presented to the House before the end of March?

Sir S. Hoare: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves).

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Day: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many gas-masks have been provided for the civilian population during the last 12 months; will he state the gross cost of same and give particulars of any arrangements that have been made during the last six months for the protection of infants from the risk of gas-poisoning?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): 40,000,000 respirators have been issued during the last 12 months for the civilian population, at a gross cost of approximately £4,000,000. Various types of apparatus for the protection of infants from the risk of gas poisoning have been

evolved from time to time, but have been discarded after trials. During the last six months, however, a satisfactory device has been developed for infants up to the age of two years, and production of all parts has already commenced, with the exception of one, which is being pushed forward with all possible speed. This part will be produced by mass production methods, and once production has commenced will become available in such large quantities as to overtake the production of the other parts in a short time. Similarly a special type of respirator has been developed during the last six months for infants over two years of age, and purchase is being arranged.

Mr. Day: Are the officers of the Minister's Department carrying on experiments for the purpose of protecting infants?

Sir J. Anderson: No. They are quite satisfied they have a device which is effective, and that is in production.

Mr. Bellenger: How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect it will be before these special respirators for young children are issued?

Sir J. Anderson: The total number to be ordered is 1,200,000. I would rather not give the definite date of the completion of delivery.

Mr. Ede: asked the Lord Privy Seal what places on the Tyneside are regarded as areas from which children will be evacuated in the event of war?

Sir J. Anderson: The plans now under preparation provide for the evacuation of children from Newcastle-on-Tyne and Gateshead.

Mr. Ede: What is the basis on which that decision was reached, in view of the very crowded parts nearer the mouth of the river which have been excluded?

Sir J. Anderson: These two county boroughs contain the largest crowded populations on Tyneside, and dispersion from them is therefore the most urgent need. We cannot put more people into the northern reception area than it will contain. When complete information is available and the survey of accommodation now being carried out is completed, the position will be reviewed in the light of that information.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the places to which these children will be sent, particularly from Gateshead, are crowded colliery areas with very small houses, and that there is really very little accommodation there. Would it not be better to consider underground shelters on a very large scale in the Tyneside area?

Sir J. Anderson: We shall know the position better when the survey is completed.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the whole of the Durham coastal area is scheduled as a neutral area, but that it is very vulnerable and highly dangerous; and does he not intend to afford any more adequate protection?

Sir J. Anderson: That is another question.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: Has the right hon. Gentleman not got a scheme to cover the county boroughs of South Shields and Sunderland and places adjacent to those county areas?

Sir J. Anderson: I think I have already dealt with that.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the country north of Newcastle, with its burning pitheaps, is very vulnerable?

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the approximate cost of the gas masks issued to the public and of a suitable container; and what steps he proposes to take to assist persons who have been issued with gas masks to keep them in safe condition?

Sir J. Anderson: The cost of the civilian respirators distributed to the public, together with the cost of the 39,000,000 carton containers which have been issued to local authorities, is over £4,000,000. The supply of carton containers to those local authorities to whom respirators were issued is now almost complete, and local authorities have been asked to make arrangements, through the wardens' organisation, to advise and guide householders in the care of the respirators already issued.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Has any decision been reached as to who owns the gas masks?

Sir J. Anderson: That question was raised yesterday, and I think there is another question on the Paper to-day about it.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in London there are still a great many places where there are no containers for the gas masks that have been issued; and will he see that containers are issued?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. R. Gibson: Are containers available for the gas masks that have been already issued to Members of this House?

Sir William Davison: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that, during the recent crisis a large number of persons who had volunteered for air-raid precautions duties, such as air-raid wardens and women casualty first-aid workers, wrote to local authorities to state that for family and other reasons they would not be able to serve in the particular borough or county; and whether, in the case of persons who are voluntarily recruited under the new national service scheme, any contractual obligation will be entered into before they are trained for their various duties at the expense of the local authorities?

Sir J. Anderson: All volunteers for the air-raid precautions services will in future be asked to sign a declaration undertaking to serve when called upon in an emergency either part-time or whole-time, according to the terms on which they have enrolled. If for any reason volunteers already trained move to another area they can offer their services to the authority of that area.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the position of Red Cross workers who have enrolled for air-raid precautions work in their various localities in the event of a crisis occuring; and whether they will be permitted to serve in such localities, or whether their services may be required elsewhere?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not sure what my hon. Friend has in mind, and if he will communicate with me I will arrange to give him a reply which will make the position of these volunteers quite clear.

Sir W. Davison: Is it not evident from the question that the idea is that members of the Red Cross who enrol in a


particular area might, owing to the exigencies of the crisis, be moved into some other area and have to serve there?

Sir J. Anderson: That is exactly one of the points on which I was not quite clear. It all depends on the conditions upon which the volunteer enrols.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Lord Privy Seal what arrangements he proposes to make for newspaper production in an emergency; and what guidance he proposes to give to the journalistic and reporting staffs who are not mentioned in the Schedule of Reserved Occupations, Cmd. 5926?

Sir J. Anderson: The importance of enabling an adequate news service to be maintained is fully recognised, and consultations have already taken place with representatives of newspapers and periodicals for the purpose of helping them to make plans for carrying on essential services in a time of emergency. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has also made arrangements to confer with representatives of newspaper proprietors and journalists on the question of the services of journalists in time of war.

Mr. Mathers: Can we take it that the Minister is quite clear about not relying too much on wireless services; and is there not an omission in the list of scheduled occupations when the manipulative side of newspaper production is provided for but nothing is done for what one might describe as the brains of the newspapers?

Sir J. Anderson: A conference has already been arranged on the matter.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why they were omitted from the list of reserved occupations? Are not journalists at least as important as jobbing gardeners?

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Lord Privy Seal to whom the steel shelters of which he has made substantial purchases will be issued for use?

Mr. Doland: asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) what steps he is taking in connection with the arrangements made by the Government with manufacturers to supply certain citizens living in vulnerable areas with steel air-raid shelters to ensure that those who will not receive these

shelters free of charge will be able to obtain them at the same cost as that charged to the Government;
(2) whether he will inform the House who will receive the steel air-raid shelters free of charge; and who will be expected to buy or make their own shelters?

Sir J. Anderson: A circular on this matter will be issued to local authorities next week, and I will arrange to have copies of it placed in the Library of the House. My hon. Friends will find that it contains much detailed information which cannot conveniently be given within the limits of an answer to a question.

Mr. Simmonds: In view of the great importance of enabling those householders who have the financial ability to purchase the shelters to do so as quickly as possible, would my right hon. Friend not say that that particular point has been carefully borne in mind?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, it has been borne in mind.

Mr. Westwood: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the use of alternative material other than steel for these shelters, which would enable us to meet more speedily what is an urgent need at the present time?

Mr. George Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to let those who can afford to pay for them have the shelters, and leave the others outside until afterwards?

Sir J. Anderson: The first supply will be made free, ex hypothesi to people who cannot afford to pay for them. As regards the first of the supplementary questions, the hon. Gentleman will see, from the report of the engineers, published yesterday, that the nature of the shelters recommended is not exclusively steel.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is giving any encouragement to local authorities to construct shelters which will withstand direct hits by medium-sized explosive bombs?

Sir J. Anderson: This very important question has been under continuous examination by my Department, but I am not yet in a position to make a fully considered and complete statement on the subject.

Mr. Simmonds: In view of the fact that local authorities are pressing to get on with this work, could my right hon. Friend give some idea when he will be able, at any rate, to release those who have definite plans, so that they can put them in hand?

Sir J. Anderson: I can assure my hon. Friend that nothing is standing in the way of consideration on its merits of any scheme submitted by a local authority.

Sir Thomas Cook: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether gas masks issued to the civil population in September last are regarded as Government property; and whether any check upon present holders is contemplated?

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made yesterday in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor).

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) when fire appliances, such as hoses, which have been indented for, are to be supplied to local authorities;
(2) how many fire-trailers have been indented for and how many delivered to the local authorities?

Sir J. Anderson: The number of appliances to be issued to a particular local authority is assessed by the Home Office, or the Scottish Office as the case may be, after examination of the local fire scheme, and when the appropriate issue has been decided, and the local authority have intimated that they are prepared to receive the appliances, delivery instructions are given to manufacturers through His Majesty's Office of Works. These instructions provide also for the delivery of hose and other ancillary gear, as supplies become available from the manufacturers. Up to 27th January, 3,500 appliances, including both trailer pumps and self-propelled units, had been delivered and approximately 300 miles of hose, and since the crisis in September very large orders have been placed as part of the measures for accelerating the programme of production. Contracts on the scale now in hand necessarily take some time to mature, and, while every effort is being made to expedite issue of the appliances, it is impossible to ensure delivery of all items at the same rate, or to arrange immediate delivery of appliances and

equipment in cases where a local authority's scheme has only recently been submitted.

Mr. Pilkington: Can my right hon. Friend give any date by which time he hopes that all local authorities throughout the country will be fully supplied?

Sir J. Anderson: I would rather confine myself to saying that we are pressing forward as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether local authorities are to be enabled to instal telephones, lockable doors, etc., and to carry out minor alterations in premises scheduled for housing fire-trailers?

Sir J. Anderson: The approved cost of any necessary alterations to premises to be used for the storage of emergency fire fighting appliances and equipment ranks for grant under the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937, and local authorities have been informed that particulars of minor works not exceeding a cost of £50 need not be specially submitted to the Department for prior approval. Any proposals for the installation of telephones required for emergency fire brigade purposes will receive favourable consideration.

Mr. Joel: asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps have been taken up to date to initiate schemes for constructing underground car parks which would be available also as deep air-raid shelters?

Mr. Leach: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government are prepared to encourage local authorities in danger zones to provide underground bomb-proof air-raid shelters capable of being used as car parks; and what rate of grant will be made for approved schemes?

Sir J. Anderson: The possibilities of constructing underground car parks which will also give some shelter protection have received my careful consideration, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and I am now arranging for immediate expert examination of certain technical problems involved.

Mr. Leach: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is in his mind in regard to grant for any approved schemes such as are put forward in my question?

Sir J. Anderson: It is contemplated that in so far as these things serve as shelters, they should be eligible for grant in accordance with the principles laid down by law.

Colonel Nathan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in addition to examining the technical aspects, he will examine the legal aspects of the matter, with a view to introducing as soon as may be any necessary enabling legislation?

Sir J. Anderson: That is already under consideration.

Mr. Simmonds: Will my right hon. Friend make certain that if these car parks are constructed they are in fact deep, otherwise they may be veritable death traps?

Miss Ward: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state a date on which the handbook incorporating the recommendations of the Government's advisory committee of architects and engineers on structural precautions in buildings against air-raid attack will be made available to the public?

Sir J. Anderson: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the revised version of Handbook No. 5. The revised text is virtually completed and there will be no delay in publication.

Miss Ward: As the Committee commenced in 1935, will my right hon. Friend think me ungracious if I ask whether he can give a specific date when the report will appear?

Mr. Crowder: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is still the case that less than one-tenth of the fire stations and accommodation needed in London for the Auxiliary Fire Service have been secured, and that there is a great shortage of the necessary apparatus; and by what date it is anticipated that these deficiencies will be made good?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not know the basis of my hon. Friend's estimate. Over 250 self-propelled units and trailer pumps have already been delivered to the London Fire Brigade and arrangements have been made for accelerated deliveries during the next few months. Particulars of forthcoming deliveries are communicated to the Council beforehand so that steps may be taken to see that the provision of

accommodation keeps pace with the delivery of appliances; and I am satisfied that the London County Council are doing everything that is reasonably possible to ensure that there shall be no avoidable delay in providing the accommodation required.

Mr. Crowder: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is room for training the actual men?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will kindly put down another question on that point.

Mr. Poole: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the throw of these trailer pumps is adequate and sufficient to reach the highest buildings; and can he say what is the actual throw of which these pumps are capable?

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot answer a question of that kind without notice.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the general apprehension felt throughout the country as regards the proposals to billet adults and children evacuated from certain areas during a crisis, and the obvious difficulties in the way of finding suitable accommodation, he will consider the establishment of permanent camps to which the children could be sent in order that their health, education, and safety may be assured?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the possibility of making use of camps to supplement the other accommodation available is being examined.

Sir A. Southby: Will the Minister undertake that before any definite plan is adopted, and certainly before a crisis arises, this House will have an opportunity of debating the whole question of billeting?

Mr. Elliot: I think that is a question which should be addressed elsewhere.

Mr. Crossley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is true that there is general apprehension felt on this matter throughout the country?

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of his decision not to include Wallsend-on-Tyne in an


evacuation scheme, he will arrange immediately for a responsible official to visit Tyneside to be shown the lay-out in order that all vulnerable areas may receive proper consideration?

Mr. Elliot: The position in regard to evacuation will be reviewed in the light of information as to accommodation which becomes available as a result of the survey which is now being made in the areas marked for reception. Before a final decision is reached I shall certainly be ready to arrange for a discussion with representatives of the local authority.

Miss Ward: Would it be possible for a responsible official now to come with me to Tyneside?

Mr. Elliot: In the first place, it is necessary to find out what accommodation is available.

Miss Ward: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMERGENCY FOOD STORAGE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is the desire of the Government that householders should store food and water for an emergency, in accordance with the statement made by his adviser, Sir Auckland Geddes?

Mr. Lewis: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether if he will consider the advisability of issuing an appeal to all manufacturers, merchants, retailers, and housewives gradually to increase the stocks of those raw materials and articles of food which they are in the habit of using and which can be stored for a considerable period without deterioration, in order that the reserve stocks of these commodities in the country may thereby be maintained at a higher level while the international situation remains of so threatening a character?

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any objection to private householders accumulating reserves of suitable foodstuffs as a precautionary measure?

Mr. Leonard: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make clear to the country that all food in the possession of private persons over

their normal requirements for one week, will be deemed as being available for national needs in the event of war?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I have been asked to reply. I see no objection to the accumulation by householders in peace time of small reserves of suitable foodstuffs, equivalent to about one week's normal requirements. Household reserves of this kind would constitute a useful addition to the total stocks in this country, and they would not be taken into account in carrying out the Government's policy of ensuring that adequate supplies of food will be available in time of war for all classes of the population. I must, however, make it clear that in an emergency, household reserves might be requisitioned if the Government of the day considered it necessary in the public interest. The House will recognise that there is a clear distinction between the accumulation of small household reserves in peace time and food-hoarding in time of war. There are, of course, grave objections to private purchases of food in excess of normal household requirements during a national emergency or in a critical period preceding an emergency.
I feel sure that all manufacturers and traders will bear in mind the desirability, so far as their individual circumstances permit, of maintaining, and if possible increasing, their stocks of those materials and foodstuffs which will be necessary for the country in time of emergency.
As regards water, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, that special measures are being taken to secure the continuity of water supplies in an emergency which, if account is taken of the storage capacity of household tanks, should obviate any necessity for individual householders to store water.

Mr. Mander: In view of the diversity of views that we have heard from Government Departments on this subject, would it not be possible to arrange for a consistent, coherent and non-contradictory advice to be given?

Mr. Stanley: There is no inconsistency whatsoever except in the mind of the hon. Gentleman and one newspaper. What I say now is a fuller elaboration of a very similar statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State


for Dominion Affairs, who was then Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, in a Debate in this House during the summer.

Mr. Lewis: Why does the right hon. Gentleman want to discourage private individuals from helping themselves and so helping the country by accumulating supplies now; and, in particular, why does he suggest that it is undesirable that private people now should acquire more than one week's supply of food?

Mr. Stanley: Because it is quite obvious that if people in large numbers were to acquire very large supplies of food it might upset the food market entirely and cause a quite unnecessary rise in prices. I have made inquiries in the food market, and I am satisfied that reserves of a more modest kind can be acquired by the householder without any upset of the normal market, and without causing any increase of prices, which might bring hardship to many people.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government to assist those people to buy and store food who can hardly afford to buy it in normal times?

Mr. Stanley: It is an addition by private means to the normal policy of the Government. Where the Government spend money or make arrangements it is clearly better that reserves should be in bulk, and not distributed.

Mr. MacMillan: Is it not the position that only people who can afford to do so can make this provision?

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of the Export Credits Act to British industry, he can state when the Government propose to take the remaining stages of the Bill?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The Committee stage of the Export Guarantees Bill is being taken to-day. So far as the remaining stages are concerned, perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to await the statement which I propose to make on Business.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL VOLUNTARY SERVICE (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether any special duties are to be allocated to Members of Parliament in the event of war; and whether they are free to volunteer for any of the positions for which volunteers are required, as outlined in the booklet on National Service recently issued to the public?

The Prime Minister: It would not, in my opinion, be right for His Majesty's Government to attempt to assign special duties to Members of Parliament as such. Each Member is, of course, free to decide for himself, in the light of his Parliamentary duties and other public obligations, what services he can undertake.

Mr. McGovern: Is there any reason why Members of Parliament who are frequently demanding war should not join up with the armed Forces?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to indicate who those Members are?

Oral Answers to Questions — REARMAMENT (INDUSTRIAL ADVISORY PANEL).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Prime Minister whether the Advisory Panel on Rearmament will furnish a report to Parliament upon its activities or in what other manner it is intended that Parliament should be kept informed of the adequacy of this body in speeding up rearmament, improving efficiency, and spreading work fairly over the country?

The Prime Minister: It was not my intention that this panel should make reports: it was set up to give practical assistance in the furtherance of the Defence programmes. I have, however, received a letter from the panel, the text of which I propose to include in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I may, perhaps, inform the House that as a first step the panel have acquainted themselves with the actual state of progress of the rearmament programme, including Air-Raid Precautions, and they have for that purpose held 15 meetings.
The panel state that they are of the opinion that the Service Departments, supported by the Treasury, are rapidly accomplishing a most difficult task of


great complexity, with efficiency and foresight even to the extent, in some cases, of establishing practically new industries in the country. They add that they feel that the magnitude of the effort which has been and is being made is altogether insufficiently realised by the country as a whole. It is pointed out that the results obtained up to the present time could not have been achieved without the wholehearted co-operation of industry operating, it must be remembered, on a peacetime basis. The panel are satisfied that this co-operation has been generally forthcoming and quote as an example the close collaboration between the Air Ministry and the aircraft industry as a result of which there has been so marked an increase in the rate of production of aircraft.
The letter further states that in view of the comparatively short period that elapsed between setting in motion the rearmament programme and the events of last September, it was inevitable that certain gaps in the Defence equipment of the nation should have been found to exist at that time, but the panel feel on the evidence submitted to them that most of these gaps either have been or are being filled as rapidly as possible.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the energetic way in which the panel are co-operating with the Defence Departments.

Mr. Davidson: Will full information be tendered at regular periods to the small parties who continually support the Government although they are not members of the Government?

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the statement that he has just read consists of the same large number of equivocal and meaningless reassurances that have caused such disquiet throughout the country?

Following is the text of the letter:

Offices of the Cabinet,

Richmond Terrace, S.W.1.

31st January, 1939.

Dear PRIME MINISTER,

We were constituted by you last December as your Advisory Panel of Industrialists to receive representations as to any delays, defects or difficulties in supply or production under the rearmament programme and to suggest remedial action in such cases, and

also any general improvements in regard to the execution of the programme or any measures in regard to the position of industry in time of emergency which our knowledge of industry might dictate to be desirable. Labour questions were excluded from our purview.

We have now made a preliminary survey of the rearmament and allied problems and of the progress so far achieved, and we have endeavoured in this letter to provide you with some account of the work that the Panel has so far carried out and to acquaint you with the general impression which it has formed as to the position in the various parts of the field covered.

You will recollect that you met the Panel on the 20th December and explained to it the objects which you had in mind in setting it up, emphasising particularly that you desired that it should settle its own method al approach to its task and that you did not wish to fetter it in any way by laying down any method of procedure. We subsequently turned our attention to the scope of our problem and to the course of action we should follow in tackling it. Our first conclusion was that we must make, as a preliminary step, a general examination of the whole field of rearmament and of such other defence measures as fell within our terms of reference and that we might, with advantage, firstly consider the items which in our opinion seemed of more immediate importance. In this category we included such matters as the supply of anti-aircraft equipment and air-raid precautions in relation to industry.

Work so far carried out.—We were impressed at the outset by the need for urgency in starting our investigation and therefore held our first meeting on the 30th December. Up to date the Panel has held some 15 meetings and has covered the following subjects, in connection with which it has had discussions with, and received memoranda from, the officers and others whose names are also indicated.

Supply of Anti-aircraft equipment:

Vice-Admiral Sir Harold Brown, Director-General of Munitions Production at the War Office.

Air-Raid Precautions in relation to industry:

Sir John Anderson, the Lord Privy Seal, and Mr. Eady, Deputy Under-Secretary, Air-Raid Precautions Department, Home Office.

The supply of Fire-fighting equipment for A.R.P.:

Mr. Dixon, Home Office; Mr. Leitch and Mr. Arnot, Office of Works.

The Naval Programme:

Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson, Controller of the Navy and Third Sea Lord.

The Air Ministry Programme:

Air Marshal Sir Wilfrid Freeman, Air Member for Development and Production; Mr. Lemon, Director-General of Production, Air Ministry.

The Aircraft Industry:

Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner, Chairman of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors.

The Creation of War Potential:

Sir Arthur Robinson, Chairman of the Supply Board and Mr. Whitham, Director of Industrial Planning at the War Office.

The Scientific Instrument Industry:

Sir Frank Smith, Secretary to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Production of Synthetic Oil:

Sir Frank Smith, Secretary to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

We have in all our contacts with Government Departments and others stressed our desire to assist them by our knowledge and experience of industry, in any way that may be found possible and we would like to place on record our appreciation of the way in which our offer has been received and of the way in which those with whom we have come in contact have co-operated with us, both in providing us with the information and facilities which we have asked for. A noticeable feature of our work has been the desire of Departments to bring cases of difficulty to our notice and to enlist our help. In certain instances we have been able to offer advice which we think may have a beneficial effect. We are satisfied that no information or evidence of material importance has been withheld from us.

We have also been approached by a number of firms and individuals putting forward suggestions or complaints regarding matters connected with rearmament or defensive measures generally. We have given, or are giving, these individual consideration.

The position as we find it.—We are not in a position at this stage to report to you in detail, but the Panel anticipates that you would wish it to record the general impressions that it has formed up to the present time. Bearing in mind all the circumstances surrounding the problem of rearmament and the urgent need for rendering the country safe against aggression in the shortest possible time, the Panel is of the opinion that the Service Departments, supported by the Treasury, are, as far as circumstances permit, rapidly accomplishing a most difficult task of great complexity, with efficiency and foresight, even to the extent, in some cases, of establishing practically new industries in the country. We feel that the magnitude of the effort which has been and is being made, is altogether insufficiently realised by the country as a whole, nor is it possible to convey this to them without divulging figures, which would be detrimental to the national interest.

The results obtained up to the present time could not have been achieved without the whole-hearted co-operation of industry, operating, it must be remembered, on a peacetime basis. The Panel is satisfied that this co-operation has been generally forthcoming and would like to quote as an example the close collaboration between the Air Ministry and the aircraft industry, as a result of which there has been so marked an increase in the rate of production of aircraft. Notwithstanding this statement the Panel holds the view that there still may be untapped resources in

industry which could and should be utilised on the same basis of voluntary co-operation as has hitherto obtained. The Panel is at present directing its attention to this question, and, in this connection, is making a comprehensive approach to organised industry for its assistance in discovering ways in which performance could be improved or progress expedited.

In view of the comparatively short period that elapsed between setting in motion the rearmament programme and the crisis, the Panel considers that it was inevitable that certain gaps in the defence equipment of the nation should have been found to exist at that time but it feels, on the evidence submitted to it, that most of these gaps either have been, or are being, filled as rapidly as possible. The Panel is glad to note that the principle of sub-contracting and of taking work to labour, rather than the reverse process, is being widely adopted and it considers that the use of this principle should be extended wherever practicable. It desires to emphasise that, despite the very marked improvement in production during the last three months of last year, and the snowball effect of having diverted large sections of industry to the task of rearmament, no relaxation of effort should be allowed to take place.

The Panel has reviewed at length the question of Air-Raid Precautions in relation to industry, and is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by commenting on the situation at this stage, as it has had the advantage of a discussion with the Lord Privy Seal and, as a result, feels assured that he has the whole problem in hand and is fully conscious of the desirability of expediting his programme. We would like to stress most strongly that in our opinion the fullest co-operation and good will on the part of all concerned will be required if Air-Raid Precautions schemes are to be made really effective in the immediate future. We do not in any way minimise the magnitude and complexity of the Air-Raid Precautions problem and in consequence we urge that the Bill which we understand is shortly to be laid before the House of Commons, should be placed on the Statute Book as early as possible in order to clarify the position. We feel that every assistance should be given to the Lord Privy Seal in his most difficult task and that industry and local authorities and the nation as a whole should treat the question as an immediate and vital one.

The Panel has also made certain recommendations to the Lord Privy Seal which it hopes may lead to the stimulation of the carrying out of Air-Raid Precautions by industrial undertakings. He, on his part, has expressed the wish to keep in the closest touch with the Panel and avail himself of their advice wherever possible.

Future Work.—We have laid down a comprehensive programme of future work to which we propose to address ourselves. We intend to survey other parts of the field and to carry out investigations into particular items that may be brought to our notice by Government Departments, organised industry or individual firms.

In conclusion, we venture to hope that the foregoing information may be of value to you.

We are,

Dear Prime Minister,

Your obedient Servants,

(Signed) J. H. M. GREENLY.

PETER F. BENNETT.

GEORGE BEHARRELL.

J. O. M. CLARK.

GEOFFREY CLARKE.

J. S. ADDISON.

Rt. Hon. Neville Chamberlain, M.P.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES.

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the widespread anxiety over the position of the shipping and shipbuilding industries, he will grant Parliamentary time for discussion of the future of these industries?

The Prime Minister: The Government have the position of shipping and shipbuilding under consideration and will make a statement as soon as it is possible to do so. I do not, therefore, consider that a debate is necessary in present circumstances.

Miss Ward: If I put down a question in a fortnight's time will my right hon. Friend be able to make a statement and reconsider the position. As we have now, apparently, got a square deal for agriculture, can we not have one for shipping and shipbuilding?

The Prime Minister: It is impossible to say now when a statement can be made.

Mr. Kirkwood: Have the Government under consideration the idea of subsidising the shipping industry? If they do so, will they see to it that the Government take control of the shipping industry?

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL POPULATION.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Prime Minister when the Royal Commission appointed to deal with the question of the geographical distribution of the industrial population will issue its report?

The Prime Minister: I am informed that the Commission have almost finished taking evidence and are considering their report. It is not at present possible to say when the report will be completed.

Mr. Stewart: Can the Prime Minister state the approximate date when he thinks the report may be expected?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — SILICOSIS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Paymaster-General, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if the inquiry being made into questions that have arisen from silicosis, and being carried out by the Industrial Pulmonary Diseases Committee, includes the pottery industry and any other industries?

The Paymaster-General (Earl Winterton): Various investigations are being made under the direction of the Industrial Pulmonary Diseases Committee of the Medical Research Council in addition to the special inquiry into chronic pulmonary disease among coal miners. These include laboratory researches into the problem of silicosis generally. Inquiries have also been made regarding silicosis in particular occupations, including pottery work, stone cutting, and lead mining, and reports have been published.

Mr. Smith: asked the Paymaster-General as representing the Lord President of the Council whether he can state the result of the inquiry on the problems of diagnosis and interpretation in reference to silicosis made by the Industrial Pulmonary Diseases Committee of the committee of the Medical Research Council; and whether consideration has been given to the urgency of the report, in view of the decision of the Royal Commission on Safety in Coal Mines, pages 469 and 470 of the Commission's report?

Earl Winterton: This investigation is in active progress, and the results of it are not yet available. The urgency of the matter is fully realised, and the work is being pressed forward with all possible speed, but it is not yet possible to say when it will be completed.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the coalowners are very disturbed about the disease of silicosis and are making some very close behind-the-scenes inquiry about it?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

REFUGEE CHILDREN.

Wing-Commander James: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Middlesex County Education Committee on 12th December, that refugee children should be admitted to secondary schools at a nominal fee, but that the committee regarded this as a temporary measure, pending the adoption of a national scheme dealing with the education of refugee children; and whether, having regard to the assurances given by the Government in Parliament, he will immediately call the attention of all education authorities to the fact that in no circumstances can refugees be allowed to become a charge upon public funds during their stay in this country?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): As regards the first part of the question, my information is that the Middlesex Education Committee decided as a provisional arrangement to admit qualified refugee children to their secondary schools, not at a nominal fee but at the normal fee for county children. As regards the second part of the question, the assurance to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is no doubt that given on 6th December last by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) which relates to expenditure by his Department. I have already stated in a reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw) on 28th November last that the duty of a local education authority to enforce the law of school attendance is equally applicable to British and alien children resident in its area. The position in regard to secondary schools is that if an alien child passes the normal entrance test and is in a position to pay the prescribed fee, he is eligible for admission.

Wing-Commander James: Are we to understand from that answer that however many alien refugee children the Home Office admit, they do in fact become chargeable to the public funds of this country for education?

Mr. Lindsay: I have stated the existing law on the matter.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Can the hon. Member give an assurance that the Government of this country are not going to join in the persecution of these children as implied in the suggestion of the hon. Member's question?

Mr. Lipson: Is it the practice of the Board of Education to interfere with the discretion of the local education authorities as to the terms and conditions on which children should be admitted to the schools?

Mr. Lindsay: No, Sir, nor have I said it is.

SECONDARY AND POST-PRIMARY EDUCATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. Ede: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what action the Board intend taking on the report of their Consultative Committee on Secondary and Post-Primary Education?

Mr. Lindsay: The report, the great value of which I should like to take this opportunity of acknowledging, is being examined departmentally and no time will be lost in getting into touch with local education authorities and other interested parties for the purpose of a full discussion of the important and constructive recommendations on such matters, amongst others, as technical high schools, the curriculum of grammar schools, the school certificate examination, and the inspection of private schools. In view of the present financial circumstances, and of the fact that even under existing conditions the expenditure falling on the Board's Vote is steadily rising, my Noble Friend is not in a position at present to adopt those administrative proposals contained in Chapter IX of the report, the acceptance of which would involve local education authorities, no less than the Board, in highly increased expenditure.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Is it the intention of the Board to make the approaches referred to before this House has an opportunity of considering that particular report?

Mr. Lindsay: There will be a discussion of the report on Wednesday week. I think there will hardly be time to have a full discussion with the local authorities before then.

PHYSICAL TRAINING (WILTSHIRE).

Mr. Ede: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the report of the physical training organisers to the Wiltshire Education Committee, that at some schools in the county, owing to the lack of adequate playgrounds, physical training has to take place on the highway; and what action he has taken thereon?

Mr. Lindsay: My attention has been drawn to this report. I am informed that four non-provided public elementary schools in Wiltshire have, until recently, used a roadway for physical training. In two of these cases such use has been, or is being, discontinued. In the other two cases the roads used are approach roads to the parish churches and carry virtually no traffic. Even so, the position clearly calls for investigation which I am undertaking.

DEGREES IN COMMERCE.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has considered the report from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce on commercial employment of students, with degrees in commerce, showing why no increase in the small number of graduates now employed in commerce will be possible unless the curriculum is altered; and will he ask university authorities and heads of public and state-supported schools to examine the recommendations in the report, with the object of enabling various branches of British commerce to benefit by the work of a large proportion of university graduates when more suitably educated?

Mr. Lindsay: The report in question has been forwarded by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to my Noble Friend who is fully alive to the importance of the questions discussed, though degree courses fall outside the administrative purview of the Board of Education. I understand that the Association have already arranged for the circulation of the report, and in particular have brought it to the notice of the universities which, of course, are the bodies primarily concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered a communication from the Consett Urban District Council pressing for legislation to increase the amount of pensions to aged people; and whether it is intended in this session of Parliament to deal with this urgent reform in its various aspects?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. On the latter part I would refer the hon. Member to the statement of Government policy on this subject made by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury during the Debate on 23rd November last.

Mr. Adams: May I inquire whether the Minister holds out any hope that we shall get this urgent reform?

Sir J. Simon: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the statement to which I have referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.

Mr. White: asked the Minister of Health whether he can make any statement with regard to the inquiry which he addressed to local authorities concerning their plans for public works and development in the next five years?

Mr. Elliot: Returns showing provisional programmes of capital expenditure covering the five years commencing 1st April, 1938, have now been received from 1,139 local authorities representing one-half of the whole. I hope that complete returns will be available shortly.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on the returns sent in how much it is proposed to spend between them?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the substantial credit balance in the possession of certain approved societies, it is intended to take the steps necessary to ensure that all insured persons, where necessary, shall be entitled to dental and optical treatment; and, if so, when?

Mr. Elliot: I am at present unable to add anything to the reply which was given to the hon. Member on 19th December last.

Mr. Jenkins: Is the Minister aware that some approved societies, whose membership is drawn mainly from areas which are more affected by industrial depression, are unable to provide these benefits like the larger societies, and that the failure of the smaller societies is due to industrial depression? Will he not take some immediate steps to correct this injustice?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member knows that any question of pooling the funds of approved societies is a very controversial matter.

Mr. Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to consult the societies on this matter?

Mr. Elliot: I have received a deputation and the matter is under consideration.

Mr. Thorne: Is not this a matter in which the principle of the rich helping the poor ought to obtain?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE (MEDICAL SERVICES).

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Minister of Health whether he will state, in general, the progress made in preparation of the medical and auxiliary services for civil defence, according to the resolution of this House of 30th November last?

Mr. Elliot: As the answer is somewhat long I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir F. Fremantle: May I ask whether the general effect is satisfactory to those chief divisional surgeons who will have to carry out these duties?

Mr. Elliot: If my hon. Friend will read the answer I think he will find that it is satisfactory.

Following is the answer:

Yes, Sir. I am glad to state that plans have now been made for finding about 200,000 beds in existing hospitals and institutions in the first 24 hours of an emergency by sending patients home and transferring them to other accommodation

and by putting additional beds and equipment in the wards. Another 100,000 could be found later by using ancillary parts of hospitals not at present used as wards. To enable these plans to be put into operation, considerable quantities of spare beds and bedding and other equipment have been obtained and are on order. Plans have also been drawn up for the grouping of the hospitals and the working arrangements which would operate between the individual hospitals in war time. These matters are being dealt with in a memorandum on the emergency hospital organisation. A draft of this memorandum is under discussion with the Voluntary Hospitals Committee for London and the British Hospitals' Association and others directly interested. Progress is also being made with the creation of new hospital accommodation. The hospital officers of my department have noted buildings and land adjoining hospitals in their several regions which are suitable for expansion, and plans for new hospital units are under consideration. A booklet on the structural precautions which might be taken against air raids has been issued to all hospitals and local authorities. A circular on first-aid posts and ambulance services has been similarly issued, following the transfer of responsibility for these matters from the Home Secretary to the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself which took effect in December. I am sending copies of these two documents to my hon. Friend.

Local authorities are making good progress in securing the necessary transport for ambulance work. In London, for instance, 1,200 commercial vehicles have already been earmarked by the London County Council in conjunction with the Ministry of Transport and the work of earmarking a further 800 is proceeding rapidly. These figures are additional to the fleet of some 250 peace time ambulances controlled by the County Council and to the 300 Green Line coaches, provision for the immediate conversion of which has already been made.

As regards personnel, I am meeting a representative gathering of the medical profession on the 15th of this month in order to discuss a scheme for allocating doctors as far as possible to the most suitable kinds of work in the event of war, full use being made of the Register compiled on behalf of the Government by the British Medical Association covering


95 per cent. of the profession. The Central Emergency Committee for Nursing recently appointed by me has commenced its work of registering and organising reserves of nurses and nursing auxiliaries.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

TUBERCULOSIS (WALES).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to deal with the recommendations made by the committee, presided over by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) on the problem of tuberculosis in Wales?

Mr. Elliot: The report of the committee is at present in process of printing and will very shortly be available for consideration by the various bodies concerned. In the meantime I am not in a position to state what steps it may be appropriate for me to take respecting the matters dealt with in the report.

WATER SUPPLIES.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Health whether any steps have yet been taken to ensure that men engaged on water supplies are not germ carriers and to provide proper hygienic arrangements for all men engaged on such work?

Mr. Elliot: A memorandum on this subject was issued to all water undertakers on 30th January. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — SLUM CLEARANCE.

Sir Charles Cayzer: asked the Minister of Health the number of towns which now consider they have cleared out all previously existing slums and have no further present need for slum-clearance orders?

Mr. Elliot: Approximately 400 local authorities have completed the programmes which they have adopted. Some of them will, no doubt, find it necessary to extend these programmes, but I have no precise information on this at present.

Sir C. Cayzer: Can the Minister say by what date he expects to have this information?

Mr. Elliot: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SANITARY INSPECTOR, BELLINGHAM.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the rural district council of Bellingham, Northumberland, in September last appointed a sanitary inspector at a salary of £200 per annum in accordance with the terms of the council's advertisement and subsequently, at the request of the Minister, required the person appointed to enter into a new agreement for service under which the officer's salary was apportioned as follows, that is to say: £170 as sanitary inspector and meat inspector and £30 as sanitary and building surveyor; and on what grounds he considers that the amount of salary allocated in respect of the duties of sanitary inspector, including those of meat inspection, is adequate remuneration for the services of a properly qualified officer and is conducive to efficient administration in an area comprising 246,645 acres?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware of the appointment to which the hon. Member refers. For the purpose of distinguishing the part of the salary which would rank for grant from the county council, it was necessary for me to ask the district council to allocate the total salary as between the two functions assigned to the officer. Having regard to the character of this district and the total amount of the salary, I did not consider that I should be justified in refusing to approve the salary and proportions as proposed by the council.

Mr. Taylor: Is not this like the action of a bad employer in breaking the term of a contract after the man has been appointed, and in view of the wide area of administration, does not the Minister consider that the amount specified under the new contract is not likely to lead to the best services for the amount paid?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think the contract was varied after the appointment of the person in question.

Mr. Taylor: Is it not a fact that the man was appointed at a salary as sanitary inspector of £200 a year and that these changes were made after he was appointed?

Mr. Elliot: His duties were known before he was appointed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister the business for next week?

The Prime Minister: Monday—Second Reading of the Currency and Bank Notes Bill, and remaining stages of the Export Guarantees Bill.
Tuesday—Second Reading of the Czechoslovakia (Financial Assistance) Bill, and consideration of the Motion to approve the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland Mail Contract.
Wednesday—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.
Thursday—Further consideration of the Currency and Bank Notes Bill, and Committee stage of the Czechoslovakia Loan Money Resolution.
Friday—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
During the week, if there is time, progress will be made with other Orders, including the Second Reading of the Bacon Industry (Amendment) Bill.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

CIVIL AVIATION.

Mr. Eckersley: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to Civil Aviation, and move a Resolution.

NAVAL RESERVES.

Commander Marsden: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the importance of the Naval Reserves, and move a Resolution.

ARMY (EMPIRE DEFENCE).

Major Rayner: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the importance of the Army in connection with Empire Defence, and move a Resolution.

NURSING SERVICES.

Sir F. Fremantle: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the Nursing Services, and move a Resolution.

UNEMPLOYMENT AND GROWTH IN PRODUCTION.

Mr. Davidson: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to Unemployment and the Growth in Production, and move a Resolution.

CONVOY VESSELS.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the necessity for the provision of Convoy Vessels, and move a Resolution.

BRITISH ARMY (PERSONNEL AND RATES OF PAY).

Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the question of Personnel and Rates of Pay in relation to efficiency in the Army, and move a Resolution.

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

Mr. Maxwell: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to Empire Resources for Aircraft Production and Training of Personnel, and move a Resolution.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Captain Cazalet, Mr. Kimball, and Lord Willoughby de Eresby; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Francis Fremantle, Mr. Spens, and Miss Ward.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Sir Richard Meller; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Emmott.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Access to Mountains Bill): Mr. Bernays, Mr. Butcher, Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Lieut.-Commander Fletcher, Captain Heilgers, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage,


Mr. Creech Jones, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Mander, Mr. Noel-Baker, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Price, the Solicitor-General, Mr. H. Strauss, and Colonel Windsor-Clive.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Hall-marking of Foreign Plate Bill): Mr. Bull, Sir John Smedley Crooke, Lieut.-Commander Fletcher, Mr. Grant-Ferris, Sir Patrick Hannon, Mr. Higgs, Mr. Creech Jones, Sir John Mellor, Mr. Price, and Captain Wallace.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Coast Protection Bill): Colonel Sir George Courthope, Mr. Trevor Cox, Sir John Smedley Crooke, Mr. Cross, Mr. Daggar, Mr. Ede, Mr. Owen Evans, Mr. Garro Jones, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Holmes, Captain Peter Macdonald, Mr. Medlicott, Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon, Mr. Muff, and Colonel Ropner.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Emmott; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Richard Meller.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

3.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of this Bill is to enable us to obtain statistics of industrial production. Its main purpose is to co-ordinate the existing powers under the Census of Production Act and the Import Duties Act. I think my best course would be first to sketch an outline of the effects of the Bill, and then to fill in some details. Hon. Members will observe that in the Schedule to the Bill, there is a passage in heavy type, and that passage contains the substance of the Bill. The rest of the Bill is for the consequential repeal of two provisos in the Census of Production Act. The Census of Production Act suffers from certain limitations upon the powers of inquiry conferred by it, and the effect of the Amendment is to add to that Act the more detailed powers of inquiry that exist under the Import Duties Act. So far as the industries covered by that Act are concerned, this involves nothing new, since those industries are already required to furnish this information under the Import Duties Act. We seek now to obtain the same information under the Census of Production Act as a matter of greater convenience both to administration and to the industries concerned. But there is also an important body of industry to which the Import Duties Act does not apply because its products are not dutiable upon importation under Part I of that Act. The effect of the Amendment, therefore, is new in so far as it brings these further industries within the scope of this more detailed inquiry.
I will now fill in the picture with a little more detail. The House is aware that the Census of Production is a general review of productive industry which is very wide in its application, although in some respects it is not very penetrating in its inquiries. In recent times, it has been the custom to take the census approximately every five years. Censuses were

taken in 1924, 1930, and 1935. At present the intention is to continue to take them at five-yearly intervals, so that the next census would fall due to be taken next year. The Import Duties Act inquiries, on the other hand, are more limited in their application, as I have indicated; they are narrower in scope, although in certain respects they go into greater detail. It is necessary, for the purpose of the discharge of the functions of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, that they should be held more frequently than the Census of Production. They have been held in 1933, 1934 and in 1937, and a very limited inquiry indeed is being held for last year, while something on a much reduced scale will be held for this year. Next year an Import Duties inquiry will be unnecessary if a Census of Production is taken, and in the year after that it will be impracticable to hold one on account of the vast mass of work which will have accumulated owing to the census in the previous year.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: When the hon. Gentleman talks of the census, does he refer to the Census of Production or the Census of Population?

Mr. Cross: The Census of Production. I will describe now the scope of the two Acts. The Census of Production Act may be applied to all productive industry with the exception of agriculture, whether that industry be in private hands or under the control of a public authority. The Import Duties Act, on the other hand, applies only to factories and workshops engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods of a class or description which, if they were imported into the United Kingdom, would be chargeable with a duty of Customs either under the Import Duties Act, the Safeguarding of Industries Act, or the Silk Duties. That leaves an important list of industries to which the Import Duties Act powers do not apply, and as this involves something new, I think it would be desirable to give the House the main classes of industry concerned.
They are, firstly, excisable commodities—beers, spirits, tobacco, and so on; secondly, the articles which are mentioned in the free list; and thirdly, the group of industries to which the Import Duties Act powers do not apply—I may give as an example building and constructional work and the shipbuilding industry. I think that gives a picture of the types of


industry covered by the two Acts, the whole field being covered by the Census of Production, while there are important limitations to the field covered by the Import Duties Act.
I turn now to the powers of inquiry which are possessed under these Acts. Under both Acts, it is possible to require information as to, firstly, the quantity and value of the output, and secondly, the cost of the materials, fuel and electricity consumed. But there are awkward limitations, with which I will deal later, as to the powers of inquiry under the Census of Production Act on these two points, whereas under the Import Duties Act there is no restriction as to the details which may be inquired into. There is a third point with regard to which there are powers of inquiry under both Acts, and that is the number of persons employed. Those three headings cover the powers of inquiry which exist under the Import Duties Act, but there are also certain other powers under the Census of Production Act; namely, the right to require information as to the power used or generated; secondly, the total amount paid to contractors for work given out to them; and thirdly, the number of days worked. Information on these points can only be required at the time when a census is taken; and this Bill makes no change in the practice.
I referred just now to the limitations upon the powers of inquiry that there are under the Census of Production Act into questions on the quantity and value of output, and, secondly, the cost of fuel and electricity consumed. Under proviso b of Section 3, Sub-section (1), of the Census of Production Act, which we propose to repeal under Clause 1, Subsection (1, b) of this Bill, information as to quantity or output can only be required in the detail specified in the import and export list. Here is an example of what occurs under that provision. Take the case of bread. Bread is an article which is not imported or exported in sufficient quantities to merit specific mention in the import and export list, and consequently there is no power to require quantitative information as to the output of bread. The same thing applies where the gas and electricity trades are concerned. The second limitation of the powers of inquiry under the Census of Production Act is in proviso b of Section 3 (1) of

that Act, which we also propose to repeal under this Bill. Under that proviso the cost of all materials used and fuel and electricity consumed can only be required in one aggregate figure. That means that there is only power to require one figure covering the following items: all raw and semi-manufactured materials; all component parts that are worked up into more finished articles; all tools for replacing worn-out tools; all packing materials; all materials used for maintenance, construction and repairs; all coal, coke, gas, petrol, heavy oils and electricity. The House will see that a lump-sum figure of that kind is perfectly valueless except for the purpose for which it was originally intended, namely, to ascertain the net value of production without duplication.
That covers the powers under both Acts and the limitations in respect of the Census of Production Act which we propose to repeal. In 1935 the census of production was held by means of making use of the powers of both these Acts independently, the Board of Trade having been advised that there would be legal objections to issuing a form under the joint authority of both Acts. For instance, firms which were required to make their returns under the Import Duties Act had to be asked to provide voluntarily such information as could only be compulsorily required under the Census of Production Act. At the same time they were notified that the failure to supply these particulars voluntarily would necessitate the issue to them of another form under the Census of Production Act, under which the information could be obtained compulsorily. There were other difficulties with which I need not trouble the House, which had their origin when it was necessary to take this census under the dual powers of the two Acts.
The explanation which I have so far given covers Clause 1, Sub-section (1). As I have said, its provisions have the effect of adding to the Census of Production Act the powers of inquiry contained in the Import Duties Act. Sub-section (2) deals with the disclosure of information obtained. The extension of the powers of the Census of Production Act contemplated in the Bill would make it unnecessary to hold an Import Duties Act inquiry in the year when a census was taken, but the disclosure of individual returns under the Census of Production


Act is expressly prohibited to any person not engaged in connection with the census. The result would be that the information supplied by individual manufacturers would be withheld from the Import Duties Advisory Committee and the Government Departments concerned with the administration of the Import Duties Act. The right to information obtained from Import Duties Act inquiries is at present accorded to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and other authorised persons under Section 10 of the Import Duties Act and under Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1934. Those powers have been transplanted into this Bill in order to afford the Import Duties Committee and the Government Department concerned the same rights with regard to information obtained from a census of production as already exist in regard to information obtained from Import Duties Act inquiries. These Clauses do not import any other added right of disclosure.
The Census of Production information has been of great use in the past not only to statisticians but to manufacturers. Manufacturers' associations use these figures in calculating the demand of other industries for their products. Individual firms find them a useful guide to the consumption of their customers. Moreover, without the additional information we cannot require information as to the total consumption of coal, coke, fuel oil, electricity, petrol and gas. Finally, this Bill has its Defence aspect. In making plans for controlling supplies in the event of war it is necessary to know what supplies of raw or semi-finished materials are required for industries which are making essential commodities. The 1935 census has already proved of great value in this connection, and, indeed, has proved to be invaluable to the Board of Trade. The Defence Departments frequently require this kind of information. This is a small Measure, but, in my submission it is a necessary and valuable one; it is not, I think, controversial, and I hope the House will readily give it a Second Reading.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: It is a long time since the first proposals for taking a census of any kind, and when they were originally put forward they met not only with civil opposition but with ecclesiastical opposition. We remember the story

in the Old Testament and what punishment was visited upon King David for his efforts in that direction. I believe I am right in saying that when the first Census of Population was taken in this country, there was a very considerable religious opposition to it; and that opposition had gradually to be overcome before the Census became a common and established fact. Of course, I recognise that there is a fundamental distinction between a census of population and a census of production. If the proposals for a Census of Production had been brought forward during the last century, they might not have been met with ecclesiastical opposition but I think they would have met with opposition from the religious dogma of laissez faire, and it would have been said that it was a monstrous inquisition to force upon the people engaged in industry a proposal that they should disclose to any one the details of what they were doing. However times have changed in both these matters, and the Census of Production rather than the Census of Population is now accepted as a step taken in the interest of the knowledge of the country.
I am glad to see that there is no proposal to alter the quiquennial period which has applied roughly in times gone by to the Census of Production. I only wish that the Government had been equally enlightened in the matter of a Census of Population. However, that does not specifically arise on the Bill. The proposals of the Bill are of a comparatively small character. They do not so much alter the amount of information which can be obtained as the method by which it can be obtained and the specific Act of Parliament under which it is obtained. Therefore, I do not think the House need have any great qualms in regard to it. We are recognising more and more that if we want to have a fully employed country we must have a great deal more planning than we have had in times gone by, and before we can plan successfully we must know the facts. Therefore, in general, statistics of information with regard to industries are valuable things. I also recognise, on the other hand, the obnoxious character of inquisitive action which may be unnecessary. Some of us took a very strong line with regard to the other question of the Census of Population and


the facts to be disclosed under it, and the Minister of Health of that time, now the Secretary of State for Air, very wisely bowed to the obvious feeling that was shown throughout the House. But in the main I do not think that that applies to this Bill.
As the Minister has pointed out, only to a very small extent does the Bill give additional powers of inquisition. In so far as the information which he is seeking to obtain is concerned, we can say that nearly all of it is obtainable to-day under a different Act. It is only in a small number of cases to which that Act does not apply that the proposals of the Bill go outside what can be obtained already. In these circumstances I do not think the House need have any fear that the Bill confers any serious extension of the powers of inquisition which are already possessed by the Government, and for my part I shall not divide the House against the Bill.

4.15 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: There are one or two observations which I would like to make. I entirely agree as to the great value of these figures; they would be much more useful if they could also be presented in the quinquennial reports by regional areas, as adopted by the Ministry of Labour. As the right hon. Gentleman has just said, it is most important that we should have more planning in the future, and if the Census of Production could be dealt with on a regional as well as an industrial basis, it would certainly help. I regret that the President of the Board of Trade has not taken powers in this Bill to obtain certain further figures such as the Ministry of Labour and other Ministries may reasonably require, but which they can hardly be expected to obtain from individual employers every year. For example, how many firms are employing ex-service men of 50 per cent. disability? How many ex-service men who have lost an arm or a leg are being employed? The value of the King's Roll, would be much increased if we knew how many of the ex-service men employed are really disabled, and to what extent. The Minister of Labour has repeatedly said that he has no information on that point. The quinquennial census could obtain that information.
The Census will not be complete until we have information as to average wages disbursed in any given industry upon the same basis as that applied to the use of materials. One great industry, the mining industry provides the fullest information as to wages and it is indispensable. The Import Duties Advisory Committee and Members of this House would certainly find their hands strengthened in dealing with applications by various industries for assistance in one form or another. We cannot do so unless we also know the amount of wages paid.
The quinquennial does not coincide with the general decennial Census. The Government have power under the Census Act to have a quinquennial Census by Order in Council but the last general Census was in 1931 and the next one will probably be in 1941. Would it not be possible to have the next Census of Production in 1941, and every five years thereafter so that the two would, thereafter, always coincide? The occupational Census which is undertaken every 10 years is of the greatest value, but it does not correspond with the Census of Production, because it is taken in a different year and on a different basis and does not cover the same ground. I know that efforts have been made by the Board of Trade recently to co-ordinate the work of the general Census with that of the Census of Production, and I should like the President of the Board of Trade to satisfy himself that nothing more can be done to make the two more effective. We might economise considerably on certain major and essential matters, and possibly obtain alternative information, and obtain it more quickly.
One other suggestion which I have to make is that the President of the Board of Trade should spare no effort to get out the Census of Production figures in a preliminary form a little more quickly than heretofore. The position in this respect is far better now than it was, but there is still room for improvement. Of the value of a preliminary report to industry there can be no doubt; it would be twice as valuable if we could get the information within six months instead of after 18 months.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: As a matter of information, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is satisfied with


the proposals for obtaining information with regard to the amount of electricity consumed in individual processes. It will be a rather difficult task, inasmuch as many different industrial processes are served from a common source of electricity. I appreciate the fact that it may be possible to do it, but it may well involve the firms concerned in some expense and I would like to know whether the hon. Gentleman has yet satisfied himself as to the method which will be employed.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I would not like to answer the hon. Member categorically on such a point of detail. I will inquire into the matter and communicate with him later, but I may say, generally, that to the best of my knowledge and understanding the questions which we are putting in order to obtain this information are not questions to which the various industries concerned are likely to find any real difficulty in replying. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) has raised a number of points which, I think, are all points of administration, and has made certain suggestions as to the manner in which the census might be made more effective. I take it, however, that he is satisfied with the general principle of the Bill, and I can assure him that I will look carefully into the points which he has raised in order to see whether we can improve the administration of the Measure by adopting any of his suggestions.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: Would it not be possible to keep this Census more up to date than it is at the present time? Conditions at present are changing swiftly and I take it that the report which is to follow on this Census of Production will not be available in a complete form for about two years, or some period like that. In view of the almost kaleidoscopic changes which are taking place in industry, this information, when we get it, may be approximately useful but it will not be possible to rely upon it absolutely as data on which decisions may have to be made. Those who know the general condition of the country and particularly those who have followed the proceedings of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Population must be aware that the present condition of industry, the point of view of Government direction and in-

fluence, cannot remain static. At the Ministry of Labour previously we had difficulty with this matter. One wanted to know exactly what changes were taking place but found it difficult to obtain up-to-date information.
I do not know whether legislation would be required for this purpose or not, but I suggest it might be possible for the Board of Trade, perhaps under this Measure, to take steps from time to time to get the necessary information from employers as to changes in machinery for example, and their effect on industry and to keep such information up to date. I understand that in America they have some means of getting such information. I do not know what their method is and I do not want to suggest that the Board of Trade should necessarily descend to their methods, but I have always understood it that they find it possible there to state at a given time in a year the approximate production in any of the big industries. I suggest that some means might be devised whereby this Census of Production could be maintained in a more up-to-date condition.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I find it impossible to answer categorically the points which have been raised by the hon. Member, but I would call his attention to the fact that since he was at the Ministry of Labour we have had the Import Duties Act and the inquiries which have been held under it every year have placed much more information about industry at the disposal of the Government. He raised the question of the rapidity with which the report of the census could be produced. I am sure he realises as well as I do that it is impossible at any time to be completely up to date in a matter of this kind, because no matter how quickly the work is done, by the time you have collected and collated your information it is inevitably to some extent out of date. I would only add that the greater the speed with which the work is done the greater is the cost of taking the Census of Production. I think that is a sound generalisation, and there is one other consideration concerning the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised. It is a matter for later consideration how far the Census of Production will be affected by the great volume of rearmament work which is going on to-day.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to give guarantees.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: We had a fairly long and comprehensive Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, and it is not my wish to make a long speech upon it at this stage. But I know that one or two of my hon. Friends have certain questions which they wish to put to the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department and before they do so I would ask him to deal with these points. The hon. Gentleman stated on 15th December that there was then something like £6,000,000 available under the old Act for further guarantees. Can he tell us how much of that sum remains? This Bill as regards the normal part of its provisions allows a further £25,000,000 for export guarantees. I know that it is impossible to form a close estimate, but I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether he has any idea how long this provision is likely to last. The increase that was made in the last Act followed very shortly on a previous increase. Does he consider that this new increase will last during the present Session of Parliament and, therefore, presumably, to the end of the present Parliament, or does he think that the increasing use which is being made of these proposals may bring him again to the House in a shorter time than that?

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Price: I wish to raise a point which was touched upon in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is not a matter on which it is very easy to put down Amendments, so I think that on this question of the Clause standing part it might be well to raise it again. Under this Clause the State is giving guarantees for export trade, on which there is general agreement in this House, but I

think that if substantial sums of State money are involved, we should consider the conditions under which these guarantees are given. When the State assumes an obligation, I think conditions could be exacted, and this is a very good opportunity for exacting them. First of all, I think it ought to be seen to that where a State guarantee is given for the export of certain goods abroad, the labour conditions in that industry are of a satisfactory nature. The principle has already been observed in municipal and Government contracts, where a Fair Wages Clause is inserted in certain cases, and I think it is desirable to see that the workers in the industry concerned, whether organised or not in trade unions, are given such conditions as are reasonable and satisfactory to those concerned.
But the most important point that I wish to raise is the question of the organisation of export industry taken as a whole. One of the reasons, I think the main reason, why this Bill has been introduced is to meet certain conditions in foreign markets. There is no doubt that one of the reasons why our export trade has been in difficulties in certain markets is the fact that certain States have organised their export trade, not only with State credit and guarantees behind it, but also—

The Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is going outside the scope of this Clause.

Mr. Price: The point that I wished to raise was this: Would it not be possible that the Board of Trade should exact the condition, before granting a guarantee for export trade, that that trade was organised in a union? The mere fact that the Federation of British Industries recently published a statement to the effect that export trade required Government guarantees and that it was not a question so much of organisation, shows what is needed. That is the point that I wish to raise, whether it would not be possible for the Board of Trade to see to it that in the future, where they give such guarantees, industry should be speaking as a whole, that it should be possible for the Board of Trade to speak to the industry as a whole and thereby come under one organisation. I do not see how it is possible for export traders to succeed against the competition of the totalitarian States, in view of the fact—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is getting, I should say, outside the limits of this Bill, certainly outside the limits of this Clause.

Mr. Price: Those are the two points that I wished to raise, and if they are out of order, I will not press them further, but leave it to the Minister to say whether or not they are matters with which he can deal.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I wish to take up the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway when he asked how much there was left of the old credit and how long the combined remnant and the new credit now made possible by this Bill are likely to last, because it appears to me that there is one field in particular where there may be very big calls on the fund if the opportunities for it are taken. One knows the conditions that are prevailing in China at the present moment and how gallantly those people are still carrying on their industry, in spite of the hostilities there, and I have heard, on what I believe to be good authority, that there may be railway developments there. There may be an opportunity for British industry to assist in the development, in China, of railways going westward towards Burma, and that may mean a very large call of a very satisfactory kind and of great advantage to both countries. For that reason I am anxious to know whether the sum that is now being provided will really be sufficient for all the calls that may be made upon it.

The Chairman: I think it is as well that I should give the Committee a general warning that we cannot discuss this matter now as if it were being dealt with on Second Reading. These points do not arise on this particular Clause, and I must ask the Committee to keep more strictly to what are the appropriate subjects for discussion.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I rise to try and get some information on Sub-section (1) of this Clause, and to ask the Government when they are going to set up the Export Guarantees Advisory Council mentioned in this Sub-section, whether it is to be as soon as this Bill has reached the Statute Book, and how that Council is to be constituted. I asked the right hon. Gentle-

man the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department a question on this matter a month or two ago. He then told me that there had been an Export Advisory Committee in operation for some years past, and he gave me the names of the personnel comprising that Committee. I noticed then that there were hardly any representatives of organised labour or of labour interests at all on that Committee, and I think that, as we are going in for something a little bit different from what has operated in the past, and as we are to have a somewhat different policy, as I understand it, in the future, some greater consideration should be given, when the Advisory Council is formed, to labour interests than has hitherto prevailed on the old Committee.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): The answer to the question put by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), as to how much now remains of the £6,000,000 to which I referred in December, is that our net increase of capital commitments since I spoke in December is of the order of £1,500,000. Over such a short period as a month that may not give a very reliable picture. The right hon. Gentleman asked me how long the increased sum of £75,000,000 would last, but that, of course, largely depends on the extent to which industry takes advantage of it. I think that with the decrease in wholesale prices which has been noted of late, it will probably last rather longer than might have been expected under the old state of affairs which prevailed in 1937. Certainly, we anticipate that it will see us through this Parliament. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) asked whether we could not propose a Fair Wages Clause, but I think that, on reconsideration, he will agree that that falls rather outside the scope of the Bill. He asked also whether it would not be possible to impose certain conditions on industry as a whole, but he will realise too that the guarantee is given to individual firms and not to industry in general. Equally, he will no doubt have seen some speeches that my right hon. Friend the President and I have been making lately, in which we have been trying to do our best to get industry organised.
The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) asked what would


happen to some possible demands for railway and other equipment in China. I think the answer to that question is that the transaction which he probably has in mind, and which I have in mind, is of an order of magnitude and would require terms of credit so long as would hardly fall within the purview of this Bill. If it is finally decided that it is desirable to do something for a project of that nature, I think he may be sure that we shall bring in a special Bill and ask the House to assent to something of the nature, for example, of the credit that we required for Turkey. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) asked when the new Export Guarantees Advisory Council would be set up. The answer is that it will be set up as soon as the Bill passes into law, and as far as we know at present, it will probably have the same personnel as the existing Advisory Committee, on which there is already a representative appointed after consultation with the Trades Union Congress and also a representative of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. Therefore, I think we may fairly claim that we have taken those interests into account already.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Returns of amount of guarantees under Section 1.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was good enough to reply to nearly everything that I said on the Second Reading, but there was one small matter on which he did not reply. I asked him whether there was any objection, and if so what it was, to giving under Clause 3 the same information with regard to the countries to which the exports from this country applied as was proposed to be given under Clause 4. There may be some quite good reason why that should not be done, but in default of that explanation I do not see why that same information should not be available under Clause 3 as under Clause 4.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I think the answer, briefly, is that we are very anxious indeed to try and preserve as far as possible the commercial character of the transactions that are guaranteed under this Bill, and we are very reluctant to publish any information that would give any lead, however indirect, to tracking down a particular transaction. There are some grave objections from an international, political point of view to our giving a list of countries and the amounts allotted to each, because it would be possible for one of the countries lower down on the list to believe that we had refused a guarantee because we thought it was not a good commercial risk. Where a country definitely comes along and wants a guarantee for a transaction of a much more political nature, those objections would not apply, and it is because we wanted to preserve the anonymity of all the transactions under the purely commercial part of the Bill that I hope the Committee will not insist on too great details being published in our quarterly return.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Further power to give guarantees.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.45 P.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: This Clause is the main new departure in the Bill. It is purely an experiment, and the Committee will await with interest the report which the Minister promises in the Bill with regard to what is done under this Clause. There is one point about which I should like to get some further information. The point is really contained in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill, which says in the last sentence:
The guarantees given under the Export, Guarantees Act, 1937, and earlier enactments, imposed no charge upon the Exchequer as the premiums received exceeded the total of claims paid and administrative expenses and it is anticipated that guarantees given under this Act will similarly impose no charge on the Exchequer.
I should like to be enlightened about these last few words. As I understand the Bill, the first part ending with Clause 3 is more or less on the existing lines. We are to have the benefit of the


advice of the Committee, which gives advice on commercial grounds, and it is, therefore, reasonable, as far as the first three Clauses are concerned, to assume that any operations under them will be of the same commercial character as in the past and not likely to involve any loss. If I am to believe the Financial Memorandum, the operations that are conducted under Clause 4, in spite of the fact that they are no longer to be on purely commercial lines and of the fact that they are not to have the approval of a council especially set up for the purpose, are also likely to be directly remunerative. That is rather surprising, because I think the object of Clause 4 is to enable the Board of Trade, in circumstances in which it thought fit, to engage on guarantees of a rather doubtful character. I should like to know which is the case. Are the operations under Clause 4 to be of so doubtful a character that they might well result in a loss, in which case Clause 6 will undoubtedly come into effective operation, or am I to believe the Financial Memorandum, which suggests that, though we are not to have the commercial safeguards of previous Bills or of the first three Clauses of this Bill, we are still to expect that there will be no loss to the Exchequer?

4.49 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: The question I wish to raise traverses almost the same ground as that covered by my right hon. Friend, namely, as to how this money is to be guaranteed under Clause 4. This is apparently a new departure and provides further powers to give guarantees. The Tyneside mayors met recently to discuss this question. One raised the question whether it would be competent to set up an industry by the aid of these guarantees to engage in the export trade. Another raised the question whether these guarantees could be utilised for running steamships in the export trade. It was generally felt that they might be a means by which districts which are suffering like the Special Areas could have money placed at their disposal to enable them to engage in the export trade which, owing to lack of funds, they are at present prevented from doing. Is there any possibility under Clause 4 of money being utilised in that way?

4.51 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I think, at first glance, the answer to the questions of

the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) is in the negative, but I would like to have an opportunity of looking into them more carefully. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) is, I think, that this is, we hope, not a Bill with the short title of "A Bill to incur losses." Although some of the transactions under Clause 4 may contain an element of risk, we shall do our best to see that they are not such as will involve us in losses. Therefore, we hope that the guarantees in the Bill will impose no charge on the Exchequer. In order that the House may from time to time be kept fully acquainted with what is going on under the Clause, we do not propose to include provision for transactions which are undertaken under Clause 4 in the existing Vote for the Export Credits Guarantee Department. As and when such provision is found to be required separate Estimates will be presented to Parliament. We are endeavouring to keep the two sets of transactions separate.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

PENSIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

4.54 p.m.

Sir Assheton Pownall: I beg to move,
That this House approves the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Pensions for Members of the House of Commons and is in favour of the initiation of legislation to carry out its proposals which impose no charge upon the taxpayer.
It might be helpful to the House, as it is more than a year since the Warren Fisher Committee reported, if I were to give a brief summary of its provisions. Let me first pay a warm tribute to Sir Warren Fisher and his colleagues for the extremely interesting report they have presented. From the actuarial and statistical point of view it is a mine of information. The analysis showing the ages and length of service of Members of the House for the last 16 or 18 years is entirely new and of considerable interest. The whole question is slightly hypo-


thetical, however, for there are 31 Members whose ages are unknown and it is impossible to give statistical figures in regard to them. When I remember that there are 15 or 16 lady Members in the House, I cannot help connecting the two things together. We have, however, exact information of the ages of the remainder of the 614 Members. Apart from any views we may hold with regard to this Motion, we owe a debt of gratitude to the committee.
This scheme would involve no direct charge of any sort or kind upon the taxpayer. It is common knowledge that the salaries of Members of Parliament were increased two years ago from £400 to £600, and it would be most inopportune and unfortunate if there were any direct charge upon the nation in view of the increase we voted ourselves then. The suggestion is that £1 per month should be deducted from each Member's salary, no matter whether the Member be a Cabinet Minister or Under-Secretary, and no matter in what part of the House he sits. That deduction would give a total of £7,000 a year. It is worked out in the report that the actuarial cost of a pension given to an individual in his early sixties after 10 years' service is roughly £1,000, and that there would be raised in a normal Parliament of 3½ to four years a sum of £25,000. The committee reckoned that it would be safe to give not fewer than 18 pensions if the full amount of £150 were paid, and if the full amount were not taken in every case, a larger number of pensions could be given. There is also provision of £75 a year for the widows of ex-Members of Parliament or those who would have qualified, but for the husband's death. It is suggested that the administration should be vested in a small body of senior Members. We know that we can always trust the judgment in these matters of our senior Members, and that such a body would see that the fund is properly administered.
The scheme is a natural and necessary corollary of the payment of Members of Parliament. It seems to me to follow almost automatically from the measure taken 26 years ago under Mr. Asquith's Government when, for the first time, Members were paid. That Measure meant that instead of, as 30 or 40 years ago, the House consisting almost entirely of

Liberals or Conservatives who had a financial background after they left the House, many Members came into the House who had not that financial background. We have also to remember that the pace in the House now is far hotter as regards work than it was a generation ago. In those days Members were not expected to give the time which is now expected of Members of Parliament. There were not the morning Committees or the Autumn Sessions, and the electorates were one-quarter or one-fifth of what they are now. The House of Commons has become much more a whole-time occupation than it was a generation or two ago, and this scheme would be for the benefit of those who had not had the opportunity of carrying on any other pursuit during their membership of the House of Commons. There has been a considerable change in the last 20 years. When I first became a Member of the House the amount of legislation undertaken was appreciably less than it now is, and the fact that we have Bills before us at the same time concerned with potatoes and with tramp steamers shows how multifarious are the interests which are dealt with here, and the amount of work which devolves upon Members in consequence.
It is objected by some of my friends that this proposal will benefit one side of the House more than another. I shall come back to that point later, but I should like to refer to a quotation from a leading article in the "Times" last month dealing with a resolution passed recently by the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations. The resolution was to the effect that no capable and desirable member of the party should be precluded from standing for Parliament solely on the ground of expense, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking), who is chairman of the party organisation, said that the first requirements in a candidate should always be character and ability. I am sure that we shall all agree about that. If those ideas are carried out we on our side of the House are going to have difficulties in that way in years to come, in ways, possibly, such as have not existed before.
It is being said also that it is not right to pass a law dealing with a few hard cases. Here one gets upon very delicate and difficult ground, because if there are


hard cases they are not cases which would wish to be brought into the public eye, preferring to hide their distresses in their own homes. Without mentioning any names I may say that I do know of three such cases. One is the case of a man who was a Member of the House with me for some years. He is now in the sixties. I do not think he would be eligible for the full pension which I have proposed, but I suggest that discretionary power should be given to the committee who would administer the scheme, and that the rule as to 10 years' service should not be a hard-and-fast one and that in exceptional cases a pension might be granted after 8½ years or nine years' service—possibly a less pension in such cases. The individual in question who, I agree, would not be qualified for the full pension of £150 a year, wrote to me last year mentioning that he and his wife are now living on a war pension of 17s. a week. That is one case. I know of another case of a man was was a Member in fairly recent years and is now in great distress. I know also the case of a widow of an ex-Cabinet Minister who had to apply for Poor Law relief. Those cases show, I think, that something must be done; and it is not a question which affects only one side of the House, because two of the three cases which I have in mind have arisen from the side of the House from which I am now speaking.
There are two matters in addition to those which are embodied in the scheme which I want the Government to consider. First, I want them to consider whether, if this Motion is carried and legislation is brought in, it would not be possible, as in the case of old age pensions, to say that if a man has by his thrift got a small sum behind him, say £100 a year, only half of it shall be taken into account when considering his pension. I should like it to be arranged so that he received £100 pension which, with his £100 of private means, would give him £200 in all. Such an encouragement to thrift is well worth consideration. One other suggestion is that if the individual holding the high office of Speaker in this House would consent—if the Government requested him to do so—to preside over the deliberations of this small committee of three or four Members it would add dignity to the proceedings of the committee. I myself would be quite content

to trust to the judgment of a committee of three or four Members, but if Mr. Speaker could be prevailed upon to take the chairmanship of the committee I am sure that it would add to the dignity of the committee.
Next I wish to say a few words upon the Amendment which will be moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby). The Amendment asks the House to say
conscious of the fact that salaries were recently increased by an amount deemed not more than sufficient to enable Members properly to carry out their duties, and having in mind the recent decision not to increase old age pensions, declines to consider a scheme of pensions for itself derived indirectly from public funds.
On that I must say that it seems to be pretty far-fetched to link the decision of this House that in these difficult times it is not possible for us to add to the already heavy burden of the cost of old age pensions with this scheme by which pensions are to be paid out of our own pockets. The £600 a year which we receive as Members of Parliament is entirely ours to spend in any way we think fit. This is purely a House of Commons question. It is not often that we do get a question which is purely a House of Commons question. The nearest analogy would be, perhaps, the proceedings of the Kitchen Committee, of which I am a member, and even there we come into contact with the outside public, because some of them may eat meals here. But this, as I say, is purely a House of Commons question, and, if my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to say so, I think it is bringing in extraneous matter to link up the question of increasing old age pensions, which involves many millions of expenditure, in these difficult times, with this question of providing ourselves with old age pensions.
It is quite true that the £600 is derived indirectly from public funds, but so far as I know there is no feeling on this matter on the part of the public. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) said this would be most unpopular in the country. I happened to follow him in debate on the subject two years ago, and my name was rather coupled with the question, but not one single letter of protest did I have with regard to it. My name was also mentioned in connection with it by the B.B.C. that same evening, and from my


90,000 electors only one letter on the subject came to me, which shows that there was not much reaction in my constituency. This pension scheme imposes no charge of a direct nature upon public funds, and it seems to me to be importing extraneous matter into the argument to bring in the question of old age pensions generally.
The real objection which is felt to the scheme is, quite frankly, that it would give more benefit to one side of the House than to another. I admit it. Many people have said to me that undoubtedly that would be the case. Here, again, I know that I am treading on rather delicate ground, but we had better go into the matter frankly. It has been said to me by many people that trade unions and co-operative societies might provide pensions for those of their members who have been Members of Parliament. I have two objections to that. The first is that there are a good many Members in this House who are not in a position to benefit from trade union or co-operative society funds. The second point is that there are not only associations of employed persons, there are associations of employers, and there might be people on this side of the House who might be able to benefit from employers' associations. I want to put this question above the plane of private interests. I want a pensions scheme started for Members, to which they themselves contribute, under which they can apply for pensions as a matter of right if they cease to be Members of the House, after having completed the necessary period of membership—apart altogether from any question of their being members of an organisation of employers or of employed persons. I think that would be very much better, in the interests of our public life, than that they should have to go to outside organisations for a measure of relief.
In this matter I think the House has lagged a good deal behind outside organisations. We have certainly lagged behind them in the matter of giving Ministers salaries which are in accordance with the increased cost of living. The Bar, the Stock Exchange, Lloyd's, the wine trade—the business with which I was previously connected—all have their benevolent organisations, and those in the Army or Navy or the other Services have pensions as a matter of right after their service. That the House of Commons has

lagged behind has caused a good deal of injustice and in the years to come there will be a great deal more injustice, unless something in the nature of this scheme is put into operation. I make the appeal that in this matter Members of the House should put Parliament before party. The other day the Leader of the Opposition paid a striking tribute to the Earl of Oxford, and I made a note of these words:
The corporate unity of this House, which transcends all party differences."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1938; col. 2187, Vol. 342.]
I also venture to appeal to the corporate unity of the House, which I hope in this matter will transcend party differences.

5.12 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I rise to second the Motion, which has been put before us in the most convincing manner and with such clear logic by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall). I think the chief points on which there may be differences are concerned not so much with the financial details of the proposals as with the points of principle involved. When I looked into this problem my mind went straight back to my early political days as a prospective unionist candidate for Parliament. The great hero of our day then was an extraordinarily able and witty young lawyer in the House named Mr. F. E. Smith. In the Parliament of 1906–10 the question came up of the legitimacy of the payment out of trade union funds of salaries to Members of Parliament for their political duties. A judgment had been given in the Smith v. Osborne case that such payment was illegal, and the Labour Members of Parliament, of whom there were a considerable body in the House, found themselves—most of them—cut off from their sources of supply.
Mr. F. E. Smith took the strong line, in which he was opposed by most of his party, of approving of the payment of Members as being the only proper solution of the difficulty—on the understanding, of course, that the Smith v. Osborne judgment remained. He said, "In my constituency at Liverpool there are a large number of working men who are Conservatives and yet, as members of their trade unions, they are mulcted of part of their payments to their trade unions for the support of a party to which they are opposed. That is wrong. The


Smith v. Osborne judgment is right in saying that such action is illegal, but if the position that it is illegal is maintained Labour Members will have no means of getting into this House. I maintain that they are a most valuable and an increasingly valuable element in the House of Commons, and we want to see them here." They ought to be brought in here independently of the trade unions—and, as has just been said, the implication applies equally to any other organisation which might support them. They should be independent of such means. Therefore he actually proposed the payment of Members as being the proper solution.
He was violently attacked. For a rising barrister with his eyes definitely set ambitiously on his career—and rightly so—it was a great temptation to him to abandon that attitude, but he stuck to it and made many speeches. He made his position clear during both General Elections of 1910. True, the Government promoted legislation afterwards which reversed the Smith-Osborne judgment, and the ground was, therefore, cut from under his feet as regards the advocacy of payment of Members, but his argument still held good. Now the position has changed, and we are familiar with the question of contracting in to the fund, which does away with the original objection which was taken to the provision of a trade union political fund. The original argument of Mr. F. E. Smith holds good, namely, that it is desirable to have on every side of this House the introduction and the encouragement of entry of Members who can be independent of any outside affiliation to which they might be committed in this respect.
The principle was accepted by the payment to Members of £400 a year, and was endorsed the year before last when the £400 was raised to £600, which was regarded as an equivalent amount. I think many hon. Members were impressed and touched, as I was, with the speech made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who gave his own case as a particular illustration. He belongs to a small party, the Independent Labour party, which took, as he said, their courage in their own hands by separating themselves from the Labour party. He said he believed with confidence that many of his friends would agree with his position, and he recognised how beholden

they were to their affiliations to the official Labour party because of the difficulty otherwise of making both ends meet. Apart from the £600, for which the hon. Member was asking support as the equivalent of £400, it was barely possible for a man to pay his expenses when he had no other resources and had to contribute to his wife and children at home in a distant part of the country, as well as to pay his own out-of-pocket expenses in London.
What will happen when a Member, having served his country well in this House on either side, leaves the House of Commons and, through sickness or through not being returned, is compelled to retire? He may have only a slight disability, but his financial difficulty will remain, and he will be back again in a position similar to that when the Smith-Osborne judgment was pronounced, of having no other resources, unless he can get back to his own occupation. I remember a very delightful incident when I was going down to St. Albans, my constituency, after the General Election of 1931. I was passing along the platform to my train at St. Pancras when I heard a voice call: "Hello, Fremantle." I looked round, but saw nobody on the platform looking at me; yet there, in the cab of the engine, was one of our most respected Front Bench Labour Members, with his cap on his head, standing on the footplate. He had gone back to his old employment. We are very glad that he is now back again in this House. I do not say that that man was glued to his party because of the money. He had gone back to his occupation and he was returned to this House with even riper experience after the General Election of 1935.
When a man leaves this House he has to find some other means of support unless he has independent means. That speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals cut deeply into the root of the matter. He said that he did not complain that his late colleagues in the Labour party had not followed him into independence, because he recognised their reason, although he considered that the reason should be done away with. The majority of us on this side of the House probably have other means of support. It would be ungenerous of us not to support wholeheartedly the Motion, with which all patriots in and out of the House must


agree, that Members should be able to say that after they have served this House truly and well, they can be redeemed from absolute poverty when they are compelled to leave that service after many years. I do not wish to say any more at the present time except to observe that some Members on this side of the House might be in that position. It might be difficult for them to find occupation if they lost their Parliamentary position when 50 or 60 years of age.
I am reminded of the parable in which the disgraced servant said: "I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do." I do not say that we should follow the principle and the practice of the unjust steward, but there is the danger that, if reduced to penury when they leave this House because they cannot find a decent means of life, some Members might resort to methods which would be incompatible with the dignity of a Member of this Imperial House. I say strongly that I hope that this House, out of its generosity, but far more than generosity, and in order to provide the real necessities of life for those who have been prepared to give up their lives to politics, will see fit to agree to this Motion.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I recognise that a measure of this kind can be carried only by a substantial majority of the House behind it, and that it will not be carried on a party vote. Although I take part in the Debate speaking from this Box, I am not speaking merely from the party point of view, but I must say that my hon. Friends have considered this proposal, especially in the form in which it came from the Departmental Committee, and that the vast majority of them accept the proposal in that form. Indeed, I say frankly, they would welcome it. I agree with one of the statements made by the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall). I cannot find any interest outside this House in this proposal, and people outside might very well regard it as mainly a domestic question; but if there should be any public repercussion as a result of this Motion, my hon. Friends and myself would accept responsibility for our share in carrying it in this House.
The proposal seems merely the natural and sensible thing to do in the present

stage to which the House of Commons has developed. I have read the Debates of a generation ago which accompanied the passing of the original Bill for the payment of Members, some little time before the War. I remember that it was then always pointed out that the salary which the Member was receiving was only an allowance for expenses. Every speaker pointed out that no Member of Parliament was expected to live upon the salary, and it was claimed that Members would have time, consistently with their parliamentary duties, to earn a sufficient income to live upon. Many changes have taken place since then, as the hon. Member for East Lewisham said. Another still more powerful reason is that since that time autumn sessions have become the practice of this House, and that we are here for about eight months in the year. The consequence is that hon. Members who do not live in London cannot carry on any continuous occupation by which they can earn an income in any provincial city.
On that account, a change has come about in the composition of the House. A new representative type of Member has come into it, one who has no resources outside. I am glad that the hon. Member explained that this new representative type is to be found on the benches of all sides of the House. I have heard a good many discussions suggesting that it would be a good thing for this House if that representative type were more evenly divided between the two sides of the House. I remember the predictions that were made on the passing of the Bill in 1911 and I can compare the present position with those prophecies. Nobody will claim that the House has deteriorated as a result of the passing of the proposals of 1911 or will say that the House is any less incorruptible to-day than it was then, or less independent. In fact, there are more independent Members on the benches of this House to-day than at any time since I entered it.
There is another matter in connection with the new composition of the House which we ought to take into account in considering the position of Members, and that is the amount of work that is entailed upon them outside this Chamber. I doubt whether it is generally recognised that the machinery of the House would not operate without that work. Since the payment of Members was introduced


originally, the whole system of Standing Committees has been set up, and, although they are not meeting at this moment, hon. Members will find that, when those Committees are in full work, the presence of about 200 Members is required here in the morning. I remember that on one morning, when there were four Standing Committees sitting and also Private Bill Committees, I went round and counted quite that number of Members who were here at 12 o'clock. [An HON. MEMBER: "They meet at eleven."] There were not so many at 11 as there were at 12. The House could not carry on unless about a third of its Members were in a position to be able to be here from noon till 11 o'clock at night or later. That, I think, was one of the main reasons why the House decided, the year before last, to increase the salaries to a sum which would enable any Member, provided that he was modest in his outlay, to obtain at any rate the primary needs of life, which had not been the case until then. One of the primary needs of life is some feeling of security in one's later days, and, indeed, I doubt whether, without it, it is possible for any man to give his full energy and concentration of thought to the work that lies before him day after day.
The Amendment contains a reference to the increase in salaries. I do not quite know what the significance of it is, but it seems to me plain that, although the salary has been increased by £200 to £600 a year, it is nevertheless insufficient, however modestly a Member lives, to enable him to save an old age pension out of it. He could not come to any arrangement with any insurance company which would give him an old age pension out of it. He may be 40 years of age when he comes here, and it is not financially possible for him to do it. Therefore, if it is to be done at all, if many of our Members are to have any security at all when they leave this House, there is only one way to do it, and that is for the House itself to set up this provident fund to which all of us would make a small contribution. The principle is more that of a provident fund than a pension fund.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, East, pointed out how difficult it is to quote the individual hard cases which have brought this matter, I am sure, to his attention and that of other Members. I am not going to quote cases, but probably we all

know of Members who have been desperately ill, and ought to have been able to leave the House for a time, but who, if they had had to do so, would have had no means of support whatever, and who, therefore, remained in the House, not to their own advantage, and not, I should have thought, in those circumstances, to any great benefit of the House itself. We know, too, of Members who have died in harness, leaving widows without any means; and we know of Members who had been in the House for years, who were Members of standing in the House, and who, having lost their seats, were worse off than the unemployed, and would have been only too thankful if ours had been an insurable occupation like that of a bricklayer's labourer. The House owes it to itself not to allow such things to happen to those with whom we have been associated as colleagues in our work.
The hon. Member for East Lewisham referred to one matter about which there is a good deal of feeling in the House. It is said by some that a large number of Members are supported by trade unions, and that, if this provision is made by the House, the trade unions will not need to make it, so that Members in contributing will be contributing to trade unions. I have made careful inquiry into this matter, and I find that not 20 per cent, of the Members on this side of the House are supported by trade unions, co-operative societies or any other organisations; and there is a lot to be said for the argument that a Member would be more independent if he relied upon a fund of this House, to which he contributed for himself.
There are certain arguments which have not, perhaps, been fully expressed, and which, perhaps, are not easy to express, but which, I think, ought to be dealt with. One difficulty is that, unlike ordinary funds, this fund would be contributed to by Members of very varying degrees of income. There are some Members of the House who are poor, some who are moderately well off, and some who are quite rich. Undoubtedly, in these conditions, a certain number of Members would be contributing to a provident fund from which, unless some extraordinarily serious accident occurred, they would never anticipate having to draw upon themselves, and it might be said—I do not say it is said—"Why


should I contribute to a fund which I am not going to need? "I think the hon. Member for Lewisham, East, had the right answer to that argument. This proposal does not stand by itself. It would never have been made if the increase of salaries had not taken place the year before last. When the extra £200 was proposed, both the Prime Minister, who proposed the increase, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who wound up the Debate, linked the proposal with that increase of salary, and in their speeches they announced the appointment of the Departmental Committee whose report we are asked to-day to endorse. Of course, the connection is very clear. All the Members of the House have received an extra £200 a year on account of the position of the poorer Members, and, therefore, it was felt that they surely would not hesitate, if a case was made out on other grounds, to give £12 out of that £200 in order that older Members who had retired might be able to live in a manner consistent with the self-respect of the House itself.
There is another argument to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, East, referred, and which seems to me to be the last really important argument that needs to be answered. I think it is a matter of argument. It is that, if this scheme is adopted, there is no guarantee that the recipients will be evenly distributed between the different parties, and the question may be asked, "Why, if I belong to one party, should I give to this scheme, under which some other party may get a larger proportion of the money than my own party?" The answer to that argument, if it be used, would be that there are some measures which, if they are regarded from the purely party point of view, are not necessarily seen in the best perspective, and this is one of them. This House is a collection of parties, but it is a corporate body, and I believe that in times of common difficulty the country appreciates the House best when it acts as a corporate body, as it did during the common difficulty of the abdication a couple of years ago, and as it may do in very much greater common difficulties which may confront us in the future, when the fate of the nation may depend on our dealing with them as a corporate body right to the end.
That, indeed, is our secret. I have seen in Europe, since the end of the War, a great number of Parliaments arising which in appearance, superficial circumstances and outlook seemed very much like our own. But they had not learned our secret, and where are they all today? That is why I appreciate the fact that this proposal has come from Conservative Members of the House, who, I venture to say, in the non-party sense of the term, are the truest Conservatives of all, and are building, probably, better than many of us at present know. Undoubtedly, if we say we are a corporate body, we must face the fact that there is no other corporate institution in this country which does not regard it as its duty to ensure that men who have served it well and faithfully shall be protected from the extremes of indigence and penury to the last day of their lives. At this time, when comparisons are being made between government by this House and government by totalitarian methods, this proposal, which is a simple and signal proof that we are a corporate body, seems to me to be a proposal with just that timely touch which will show that we have not, even yet, lost our old political genius.

5.43 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: On this question of pensions, even before the salaries of Members were increased to £600, I was chairman of a committee, of which the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was the secretary. We went to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—the present Prime Minister—and laid before him a certain scheme, which involved the possibility of pensions for Members, because we felt that, as has been well said by the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), here was a case which from past instances, and even from present instances which we knew might fall in the future, the House of Commons ought to examine. Although at that time the right hon. Gentleman said he could not accept our scheme, he nevertheless received it favourably as a matter of principle from the House of Commons point of view, and we now come to examine the present scheme.
I am not going to labour the point with regard to past cases and the hardships which occur, but they are not confined to one side of the House. I remember two


cases in my own party, of two very distinguished Members who served the House faithfully in every way, but when death came their dependants were left absolutely penniless, and had to come to the party. It is not a very dignified thing to have to come to your party, and, since both of those Members were House of Commons men, it would have been far better if, in view of their services to the House, which had left them in the position of having no money to leave to their dependants, there had been some fund from which they could have drawn, openly and from a House of Commons point of view, something which would have saved them from the position of utter poverty in which they actually were. There is no doubt that in this House to-day there are people whom we respect for the positions they hold, who would be in poverty if, by the turn of fate or illness, they were turned out. I cannot see that there is anything wrong in our deciding, as a corporate body, that some part of the higher salaries which we receive should be devoted to bringing in a pensions system, so that we do not have that odium put upon us—because it is a question of odium when people have to come and make requests because they have no money at all.
I come now to the question of this plan. There are one or two criticisms I would like to make. I do not think this is really a scheme of pensions for members; it is a benevolent fund. A pension is something to which a man is entitled after so many years service, something which he can claim and into which he has put his money. This is really a benevolent fund, which is to be administered by a certain number of people. I do not care for this strict means test, and I would rather see a proper pensions scheme. I admit, in view of the actuarial figures given, that it is perhaps not possible at the moment, although if Members will study Appendix 3 of the French arrangement they will see that, although at the moment there is some money put in by the State, it is nevertheless a real pensions scheme. I would rather we tried to get some system like that.
I do not know whether hon. Members saw in the Public Accounts Committee's Report that a saving of something like £5,000 a year has been made on Members' salaries, because a great many Members

do not take the salaries to which they are entitled. I hope that perhaps those who do not take their salaries will put the amount into this fund. In that way we could hope to build up the fund, so that something more generous could be done than what is contemplated here. We are not giving very much to a widow in bringing her income up to £75 a year, so do not let us think we are throwing away our money in a sort of squandermania in order to pension old Labour Members whom their party has thrown out for some reason or other. However, I welcome this proposal, and I do not think the Amendment does credit either to the mentality or the political sense or the fairness of the House of Commons which I am certain that those who framed the Amendment were trying to achieve. Not only are we concerned with past cases. I know of cases which are bound to arise, and I know that hon. Members would feel ashamed if they realised that these cases would have to be faced. There certainly is nothing for us to be ashamed of in deciding to give £12 a year out of the £600 that we now receive in order to assist such cases.

5.50 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The matter which forms the subject of my hon. Friend's Motion was first debated in the House in June, 1937. On that occasion I moved for an increase in the salaries of hon. Members. In the course of my speech I made some allusions to what I knew of the desire of hon. Members to provide some form of pensions to Members who had retired from the House and were not able to maintain themselves. I remember that I pointed out that any scheme brought forward for that purpose would require legislation, and I suggested that it might be well, before any such legislation was framed, to have a careful investigation made into the subject by some competent authority, because it was very necessary that we should not be led away into thinking that things were possible which might turn out to be impossible, and that if we did have a scheme it must be actuarially sound. I recollect also that I observed on that occasion that I thought there was some confusion of thought on the matter because other schemes of pensions, such as those, for example, enjoyed by civil servants, were granted under conditions


which would not be at all analogous to the conditions which would apply to a scheme for Members of the House of Commons.
The suggestion I made was approved of, and a very strong departmental committee was set up, under the Chairmanship of Sir Warren Fisher, to go into the question. Their report was presented in December, 1937, and in the course of it they showed that they had examined various possibilities; but the result of their inquiries really bore out what I had said on the matter, and it was not possible to set up a pensions scheme under which members should enjoy pensions by right, on the principle which is observed in the case of the Civil Service and other institutions. But they did produce a scheme which they thought was sound and practicable, which went as far as they thought it possible to go in the direction desired, and the recommendations that they made form the basis of my hon. Friend's Motion to-day.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) put a question to me last December as to the procedure which the Government proposed to follow in this matter, and I then said that we hoped to have a debate on the subject but that the decision would be left to a free vote of the House. That is the position this afternoon, and it follows from that that the Government, as a Government, have no opinion on this matter at all, but every Member of the Government, and every Member of the House of course, is free to vote exactly as he pleases. In saying that, I do not think it would be right for me as Leader of the House to keep silent, and I am proposing to express my own view and my own intention. But in doing that, I want to make it perfectly clear that when I say every hon. Member—and, in particular, I am addressing hon. Members who are supporters of the Government—is perfectly entitled to his own opinion, on what is very largely a personal matter, I mean that in the spirit as well as in the letter, and as it well may be that some of my hon. Friends may not share the views I am going to express, I assure them very earnestly that I shall never reproach and never harbour any resentment against anybody who expresses a different view from that which I am going to express.
Let me come to the proposal which my hon. Friend has put before the House. The operative part of the proposal is that there shall be a compulsory deduction from the salaries of hon. Members of £1 a month, which will provide an income of about £7,000 a year to constitute a fund from which grants can be made to ex-Members or to their widows, within certain prescribed limits and at the discretion of a body of trustees to be appointed by the House. On that proposition I would make two observations. The first one has reference to its compulsory character. I want to point out that if the scheme is to be effective it is essential that the deduction shall be compulsory, because unless it is compulsory you will not be able to count on any definite income, and therefore it will be impossible to be assured that any grants that are given will be continuous. Obviously, to begin to pay an annual grant to an ex-Member and then to have to cut it off later on because the funds were insufficient would be creating hardship, rather than alleviating it. Therefore, it is essential that the deduction shall be compulsory.
The second observation I want to make is that this is not a scheme which imposes any charge on the public funds. The salary of hon. Members is now laid down by law. Salaries are not affected one way or another. It does not mean that any further charge will be laid on the Exchequer by reason of the: money which it is suggested should be devoted to the fund. I confess I do not follow the suggestion that the money for the fund will be derived indirectly from public funds. The salaries of Members are going to remain the same anyhow. Public funds cannot be affected by what use hon. Members choose to make of their own salaries. Nor can I conceive that the general public can have any interest in the matter at all, beyond what I might call a sympathetic interest. They will not be affected by it. Nobody outside the House will be the poorer for any scheme, and I do not conceive that anyone outside the House will raise objections to the setting up of a fund of this kind.
I remember that when I was referring to the question of the necessity or otherwise for an increase in the salaries of hon. Members I had to make an investigation into the actual circumstances of individual cases. Certain cases were sub-


mitted to me in confidence, and, of course, it has never been disclosed what the source of the information was. But I told the House at the time that I felt a good deal shocked to find to what straits some hon. Members had been brought by reason of the insufficiency of the salary, as it then was, to enable them to carry on their duties efficiently, or actually, in some cases, even to provide adequate nourishment for themselves. That struck me as being a very distressing state of things. I am glad it has now been removed by the increase of salary which was made. Although hon. Members have had £200 added to that salary, I think, with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that even so the £600 which hon. Members now receive is not enough to enable a Member who has no other income, at any rate, to save sufficient to enable him to maintain himself when he leaves this House and ceases to draw his salary. That may not arise when a man leaves this House when he is young enough to resume his former occupation or find a new one, but there will always be a number of cases where Members lose their seats or have to give up their seats for one reason or another at an age when it is no longer possible for them to obtain employment and to start earning a livelihood in some other way.
These are the cases that would be dealt with under my hon. Friend's proposal, and I do not think that any of us could contemplate with indifference the spectacle of a man who had for a long time been a Member of this House and who was familiar to all of us, being compelled on his retirement to spend the rest of his days in grinding poverty, unable to maintain himself at anything approaching the standard which had been expected of him as long as he was a Member of this House, and unable to do anything for dependants, if he had any, and perhaps obliged to seek public assistance or to avail himself of the charity of those more fortunate than himself. We regret the prospect of such a fate for any Member and I cannot think that that would be a source of difference among any of us.
I can imagine the state of mind of some hon. Members of the House; they ask themselves whether, granted that something ought to be done to prevent such a state of things as that which I have suggested, this is the right way to do it.

I am not at all sure that the argument against it was put by the right hon. Gentleman just perhaps as it would be put by those who take this view. It is true that here we are divided on policy, but it is not merely a question of whether one party is going to get more out of a scheme of this kind than another party. The argument as I see it would rather be this, that here is a man who, according to his own lights has served the country faithfully and well. But says an hon. Gentleman, "He has been all his life opposing, obstructing and trying his best to defeat the very thing which I have come here to try and implement, and it seems therefore hard for me that I should be expected to contribute something to encourage that which I may not support." That seems to me to be an argument of logic which it is difficult to controvert. But the human way of looking at it is perhaps another question, and I confess that I look at it myself from rather a different point of view.
It is quite true that we are here opposed to one another on political matters and that we hold our views, many of us very strongly, and that in the heat of argument we perhaps say hard things about one another. But, in spite of that, I believe that very Member of this House recognises that he is part of a common institution in which we all take an enormous pride, not only because of its great historical traditions, of which we believe ourselves to be trustees, but perhaps even more because it is the principal working part of a system of government in which all of us believe and to which we are deeply attached, because we believe that it is the system which is best suited to the temperament of our people and best fitted to give justice and ordered liberty to the people who are governed. I feel that if somebody were to come to us and say, "I can offer you, instead of your present system of government, a new system under which the whole control of government would be in the hands of a single party," even if that were our own party, we should reject it. We should feel that such a. system would not last in this country and that, sooner or later, it must give rise to open revolt and perhaps to revolution. When I look at it—and I look at this matter from this point of view—it seems to me that this is an opportunity for us to show our belief in that common bond which unites us all


and to pay our tribute to the democratic system of government of which this House is the representative. It is from that point of view that I myself intend to vote for the Motion of my hon. Friend.
I wish, like the right hon. Member opposite, that it were possible to do a little bit more than perhaps we must confine ourselves to for the present, if we are to regard the limits which prudence must impose upon us. But I take note of the fact that under the scheme which my hon. Friend has in mind, it will be possible for the trustees to accept gifts or legacies which may be added to the fund, and I cannot help feeling that once this fund were established, it would be found that it would undergo the same experience as has been found to exist in many other cases, and that it would receive benefactions which in time would build up its reserves to an extent which would enable the limited grant now contemplated to be increased. That perhaps will be for the future. For the present I myself should be very glad to see this fund established with the secure income that would come to it from the compulsory deduction proposed under the scheme, and I believe that the establishment of this fund and its working would add dignity to the respect in which this House is held.

6.9 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
conscious of the fact that salaries were recently increased by an amount deemed not more than sufficient to enable Members properly to carry out their duties, and having in mind the recent decision not to increase old age pensions, declines to consider a scheme of pensions for itself derived indirectly from public funds.
I find myself in a difficulty, which, I am sure, the House will realise, in speaking after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and may I say at the outset how much I, and I am sure other back bench Members, welcomed the assurance which he gave that the Vote on this occasion is to be an entirely free one. I do not think that we need that assurance from my right hon. Friend, because I do not believe that anybody in this House would imagine for a moment that he would desire, either on this occasion or

upon any other, that any Member of this House should vote otherwise than in accordance with the dictates of his conscience. Several speakers have made allusions to the words in the Amendment which I rise to move and which stands on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. They took exception to the particular phrasing of the last few words regarding the pensions being derived entirely from public funds.
It is fair to argue that the fund which this scheme seeks to produce would be derived indirectly from public funds. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down almost made my case for me, because he pointed out that the salaries which Members receive, recently raised to £600, are a payment out of the public funds to Members of this House. If this scheme is brought into force Members of Parliament will not receive the £600 which they were voted by this House on a previous occasion, but £600, less £12. In other words, this House will be voting £12 per head of the Members of this House—money derived from public funds—for another purpose other than that of paying salaries to Members of this House who are servants of the public. Therefore, it is fair to argue that to the extent of £7,280 this House will be voting that amount of public funds to a purpose, which is, pensions for ex-Members of Parliament who are in need. Therefore, after the public has approved, through its Members in this House, the payment of £600 per head to the Members of this House, it is going to be asked to approve of the payment of £7,280 per annum to a fund to men who are no longer servants of the country in this House, but who are ex-Members. Public opinion requires to be taken into consideration in this matter, and that there are doubts and misgivings throughout the country, every hon. and right hon. Member in this House must be aware.
People in the country viewed with some misgiving the increase in salaries to Members, and they certainly would view with misgiving the payment of pensions to ex-Members. One must examine the suggestion that is being made by this proposal rather carefully before coming to a decision. I say at once that I do not think that lack of finance should prevent any man or woman in this country being able to serve the country in this honourable House, nor do I think that there is


a Member of this House who would grudge the sum of £12 a year to a fund which would provide for those who have been Members of this House, and who have fallen into want.
I am not averse to pensions, but I am averse to a scheme of this particular kind, and, as I shall hope to show in a moment, I feel that the time is not ripe for a pension scheme such as I would like being brought before this House and approved. No man who has served the nation in this House should ever have to end his life in want. It is a national charge upon this country to see to it that those who serve the country in this House should do so without the spectre of financial stringency haunting them while they are in the service of this House or haunting them when, through illness or age or for some other cause, they are no longer able to serve in this House. The salaries of Members of this House are not paid as charity, and I contend that if pensions for ex-Members are desirable—it may well be argued that they are desirable, and I think in many cases they are certainly desirable—then it is equally true to say that pensions for ex-Members of this House should not be charity, either. I do not think there is one soul in this House, to whatever party he or she belongs, but would be anxious in the case of want on the part of any Member or ex-Member of this House, to try to do their best to help.
My hon. Friend who moved the Motion was a little unfair in trying to introduce the suggestion that the opposition to this scheme from hon. Members on this side, or it may be on the other side, is based upon the feeling that one side would benefit by the scheme. All of us desire, however much we may differ in some of our political views to help one another. The salary of £600 paid to each Member was deemed to be a salary sufficient to enable him or her to carry out their duties in this House, but it was not deemed to be sufficient to provide for the possibility of a Member of this House saving for old age. Therefore, one is forced to this position, that either pensions for deserving cases of ex-Members are a national responsibility, or they are a responsibility which rests upon the Members of this House as a corporate body.
As I understand the proposal, it is that this House as a corporate body should set up what an hon. Member from

the Liberal benches described, quite rightly, as a benevolent fund. The suggestion is that our salaries should, by legal compulsion, be mulcted of £12 a year, which is to be paid into a benevolent fund. I do not begrudge £12 a year to help my fellow ex-Members of this House who are in difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) suggested that this fund was analogous to the Stock Exchange Benevolent Fund and the fund which, I understand, the Bar has for members of the Bar who fall upon evil times. It is not the same thing at all. I have had the honour of being a member of the Stock Exchange. The Stock Exchange Fund is one raised by voluntary contributions. If the House decides that pensions for ex-Members of this House should be paid from a benevolent fund, by all means raise that fund by voluntary contributions from Members of this House. It is not fair to any hon. Member that in order to contribute to a benevolent fund we should arbitrarily mulct the salary of a Member by even £12 a year. It is within our knowledge that to most of us £12 a year means very little, but there are Members of this House, not on one side, to whom the sum of £12 a year means a great deal.
All those who have spoken have stressed the impossibility of providing an actuarially sound scheme of contributory insurance for Members of this House. Obviously, the administration of a benevolent fund of this kind would be exceedingly difficult. There would be differences of opinion as to whether individuals qualified for the pension or not. That is not the way to go about it. If the country decides that it should pay pensions to Members of this House, then every Members must be eligible for such a pension, irrespective of any benevolent fund committee which may have been set up. Pensions are paid to other servants of the State—soldiers, sailors, airmen and civil servants. Those pensions are not paid as a benevolent contribution. In certain cases where individuals have not qualified under the pensions scheme, compassionate grants are made. I suggest that if we are to have a pension fund for ex-Members of this House, we should have one under which, by reason of having qualified by length of service, any Member in need should be able to obtain a pension.
The question whether this scheme is workable or not has been set out to a certain extent in the White Paper. I notice that the Warren Fisher Committee quote the opinions of certain Members of Parliament. I wonder if that Committee heard the opinions of Members of Parliament who are opposed to this form of scheme. Although we owe a debt of gratitude to the Committee for the work it did, it might have made more exhaustive inquiries as to the views of Members of Parliament before coming to its conclusions. To many of us the fact that it was sitting was almost unknown. To select a few Members here and there is not really getting the opinion of this House on something which vitally concerns not only the Members of this House, but the people outside who are represented by us.
The Mover of the Motion suggested that under the scheme pensions can be paid to only a limited number of Members. That is grossly unfair. It was suggested from the Front Opposition Bench, and I believe it to be desirable, that we should have more Members who are not necessarily in possession of private means. In that case it might well be that we should have a considerable number of applicants for pensions, and we should have only this small fund of £7,000 a year from which to pay the pensions. What is to he the lot of those ex-Members who are not in the House at the present time and who, presumably, will not come under this scheme? The difficulties which we are raising by trying to settle the problem of the support of ex-Members of this House who are in need, by establishing a benevolent fund, must be obvious to every hon. Member, and the difficulties must inevitably grow as we further examine the case. You cannot limit the number of pensions you are able to pay by reason of the inability of the fund to do more than pay a certain number, without by so limiting those pensions doing an injustice to many men and women who might really be in need. The only way we can deal with this problem of the ex-Member of this House who falls into financial difficulties, is by having a definite Government scheme whereby any man or woman who has served the nation in this honourable House for a certain number of years would be entitled to a pension if he or she can show that

they are in want. That is the only logical and reasonable way in which the difficulty can be met.
But I do not believe that the present is the time for such a scheme to be brought into effect. I am not averse to a pensions scheme, because it is right that there should be security from want for those who have served the nation in this House, but when we cannot provide more than 10s. a week for an old age pension, and when we have raised our own salaries to £600 a year, quite rightly and quite properly, it is not the time to institute a pension fund for Members of Parliament. I do not believe that if a national pension fund for Members of this House were put forward by the Exchequer, that the country would approve of it. If individual cases of hardship among ex-Members are to be dealt with, then the only fair way to deal with them is either by voluntary assistance from Members of this House for needy ex-Members, or by the party funds giving necessary assistance to those who have served in this House.

Mr. Buchanan: What about my party?

Sir A. Southby: I am sure that the hon. Member's party would never call in vain upon hon. Members on this side. If the fund is to be a benevolent fund, then it must be a voluntary fund, and it would be best to have it contributed from party funds. I think the best way to solve the problem is not by setting up a benevolent fund but to have a pension scheme paid for out of national funds, but I say most emphatically that this is not the right time to set up such a fund, in view of the fact that there are many harder cases amongst the population of this country than exist among ex-Members of Parliament.
Reference has been made by the hon. Member for East Lewisham to the fact that he has not received much in the way of correspondence on the subject. I am reinforced in the view I take by a letter that I have received, not from a constituent of mine but from a person who lives in Wales. The letter says:
I wish you all success in your opposition to the scheme of giving pensions to Members of Parliament. Really, I cannot understand the mentality of Members of Parliament supporting such a thing, when, as you say, old age pensioners are expected to live on 10s. a week, and with wife, another 10s., making £52 a year. What a contrast. People who probably never had the chance of providing for their old age and who are living in


poverty, not knowing the blessing of a good meal. I think are more worthy of support and I am sure they thank you from their hearts that you have taken up their Cause.
I am pleading their case at the present time. When the cry of these poor people remains unanswered, and it is impossible for the country to answer it by reason of the state of our finances at the present time, then I say that this is not the time for us to pay pensions to ex-Members of Parliament.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to second the Amendment.
I was very glad when I heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say that he was sure that it was not the principle of pensions to which those of us who have put our names to the Amendment object, but the particular method. My first objection to the Motion comes to this. What did we do two years ago? We had a series of speeches from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both Front Benches, telling us that there were a certain number of Members of this House who were unable to live on the salary they were then receiving. After a great deal of investigation and thought on the part of His Majesty's Government, the figure of £600 was brought before this House as one on which those few Members who were in that needy position might be able to carry out decently and properly their duties as Members of this House. It is the same House of Commons, and a majority is now being asked by this Motion to compel that small minority to tax themselves to the extent of £12 a year.
Of course a majority of this House can constitutionally do anything, and majorities have done some strange things in their time, but we are told that as this is a purely domestic matter and that we ought to look at it from the point of view of our fellow-Members—and a majority of the House is proposing to take away £12 a year from a small minority. I am sure that none of that minority will speak to-day, but I do hesitate, as a Member of the House who voted in favour of the increase in salaries two years ago, to turn round now and vote in favour o compelling these Members to tax themselves to the extent of £12 a year. It does not sound a great deal to ask a man to tax himself with £12 out of a salary

of £600, and in most of our cases it is probably not a serious matter. Most of us I am certain would not dream of grudging the £12 for the reasons for which it is asked, but the poorer a man is, the more a man has to rely on his salary to keep up his position and maintain his family, the more serious to him is the deduction of that sum. None of these hon. Members will tell us of their difficulties, but I think we all ought to consider very seriously whether in the same Parliament we have any right to do this in regard to this small minority.
If this were a new Parliament and hon. Members were elected knowing that this deduction would be made, and were prepared to accept these terms, well and good, but for a majority of this House to make this compulsory deduction raises great difficulties, and it is mainly on that ground, in spite of all that has been said, that I feel quite unable to vote for the Motion in its present form. Then there is not the slightest doubt that if we start this provident fund on the basis of compulsory contributions—I entirely agree with the Prime Minister that the whole proposal depends on these deductions being compulsory year after year—this fund and future pensions out of the fund are going to be made dependent on contributions from the Revenue.
May I make a suggestion to the House? There was a very great deal of discussion in the country when our salaries were put up to £600 a year. I regret to say that I am not satisfied we are going to get through the next 20 years without some financial difficulties in the country. As far as I can foresee the future, and having the utmost confidence in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think there is a possibility that for much the same reasons we shall have to take the same sort of steps which the first National Government had to take in 1931 when it was necessary to reduce substantially the salaries of officers of the Crown, like the judges, and in such a case no decent House of Commons would for one moment refrain from reducing its own salaries. This brings me back to my first point. An hon. Member who is endeavouring to live on his salary would in a crisis find his difficulties doubled. If, as I suspect, there are hon. Members to whom a deduction of £12 out of £600 is a serious matter, and if such a financial crisis ever arose again, you would have to


maintain the hon. Member in the fund, otherwise those who are getting their pensions would not know where they were, and such a deduction would become still more serious at a time like that. Therefore, I am driven to the conclusion that a scheme of compulsory deduction from what happens to be the salary of hon. Members for the time being, is a scheme of neither one kind nor another.
I can understand a scheme started as a provident or benevolent fund, perhaps under the direction of Mr. Speaker, and being built up by voluntary contributions from those who believe in the interests of the House as a corporate body and that it is most undesirable any ex-Member or any widow of a Member should be on the verge of starvation as a result of their public work. Let it be a benevolent fund on a voluntary basis, such as exists in the great professions of this country. There is a benevolent association, a purely voluntary association, to deal with the members of my own profession who fall by the wayside. The alternative has been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby). If it is true that men and women who have given years of service to the country in this House should, when their time in this House is over be able to live for the rest of their days in comfort, then it should be recognised as a national obligation just as much as the payment of our salaries while we are here. But the difficulty of looking at it in that way and of doing something immediately is that this is not the proper time to ask the taxpayers of the country to contribute towards such a fund. It may be possible in the future, but it is not possible now. I was going to stigmatise this as a bastard scheme—it is a compulsory contributory benevolent fund scheme. It is neither one thing nor the other, and I cannot see that it adds dignity to the House. It may help a few, but it is going to be terribly difficult to administer. It may be that the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and myself have broken in somewhat roughly on the almost continuous harmony which has so far prevailed in the House, yet I think hon. Members should consider carefully whether they are going to adopt this scheme as the best they can do for ex-Members of the House.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: I rise to support the Motion. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) is an extremely able lawyer, but if he will read his speech to-morrow morning in the OFFICIAL REPORT I think he will blush for shame. Of all the fantastic arguments I have ever heard the most fantastic was that in which he said that he was speaking for the poorer hon. Members who will not be able to afford £12 a year. Those are the people who will benefit most from the scheme. The scheme has been designed for them. They will subscribe £12 a year and they are going to get £150 a year when they retire after the age of 60. I cannot imagine a more flimsy or weaker argument upon which to base a case, and when one realises how clever a lawyer the hon. and learned Member is, one must come to the conclusion that his case must be extremely weak if he has to choose that as his best argument. The argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) was this, "I do not like this scheme. I would much rather have an elaborate system of pensions with everyone brought in, but it is obvious that it would not be suitable to do that at the present moment. Therefore, because we cannot do that we will do nothing." That is not really a tenable argument. Because you cannot get a whole loaf you are going to do without any bread at all. It is an argument which will not appeal to anyone who has given any serious attention to this matter. It is a proposal to which it is very easy to object on theoretical and superficial grounds.
From my personal knowledge, which can easily be corroborated by anybody who cares to make inquiries of his friends in this House—and we all have friends in other parties—such a scheme as this is urgently necessary. I do not want to paint any tragic picture or speak of the horrors of poverty, but rather turn to the cold and logical words of the report, which, in my view, are quite conclusive that the scheme is needed. On page 7 it says:
In a certain number of cases a Member, who has spent many years in Parliament is unable after the cessation of his Parliamentary salary to support himself in the most modest manner which comports with the dignity of this Institution.
We do not want to use the arts of rhetoric and tell tragic stories on this


matter, but that a benevolent fund of some sort should be set up to deal with cases like those of which we know is an urgent necessity. I am not arguing whether this is the best form of benevolent fund to set up. Sir Warren Fisher is the most able authority in the world on these matters, and I would rather take his advice than follow my own. Therefore, I urge that hon. Members in the Conservative party, who have taken the trouble to inquire into the hardships of some hon. Members of this House, should support us in the Lobby when the Motion goes to a Division.
I would make one small comment on the actual proposals. I am not sure that it would not be a good thing if we laid it down that once an ex-Member of this House came on the pension fund of any scheme he should consider himself not eligible to come back to the House of Commons as a Member. I believe that on further consideration, hon. Members would agree that probably that would be a good thing. I simply throw out the suggestion. On the main scheme, which is that we should set up a benevolent fund to which we would pay a small proportion of our income, I do not believe there is any hon. Member who would grudge the £12 a year, however rich or however poor he might be. The hon. and learned Member said that it would be difficult to administer, but I do not agree with him. I have had a little experience in this matter, as I sit on the board of one benevolent fund, and actually such funds are not difficult to administer if the people concerned go about the work in the right way. I think it is urgently necessary that we should set up some benevolent fund, and once again I urge hon. Members in all parts of the House to support the Motion.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Duff Cooper: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) made a violent attack on the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), especially criticising him in view of his great legal ability. In listening to the hon. Member for Sowerby, I could not help regretting that he had not had a little legal training himself, because if he had, I think it would have conduced to clearer thinking on his part. The gist of his argument was that the urgent need for a scheme exists. But this scheme would come into force only in ten years

—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]. Would a Member who lost his seat to-morrow be eligible?

Sir A. Pownall: He would if the legislation were passed.

Mr. Cooper: The fund has not been formed.

Mr. McCorquodale: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that if I had had a little legal training, I should have made a better argument. May I suggest that he would have done better if he had studied his brief a little more?

Mr. Cooper: I understood that a Member would have to have ten years' service in the House after the passing of the Motion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and the fund would have to come into existence. It does not exist at present; therefore, there is no fund from which pensions could be paid in the present year.

Sir A. Pownall: A fund of £7,000 a year will accrue as soon as the necessary legislation is passed.

Mr. Cooper: If the necessary legislation is passed—and even that will take some time. Do I understand the hon. Member to say that the ten year's service is retrospective?

Sir A. Pownall: Yes.

Mr. Cooper: I maintain that, if the urgency is very grave, the fact of passing this Motion to-night and of passing the necessary legislation during the next two or three months will not ensure that Members who are in need of this pension will get it during the present year, should they require it. Further, the hon. Member for Sowerby said that we want a scheme. He did not defend the present scheme, but seemed to suggest that it was better than nothing. From the legal or the philosophical point of view, the mere necessity of some reform is never a justification for introducing an unwise reform. I do not think that the hon. Member, in his speech, justified this proposal.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely), in supporting the Motion, laid his finger on its weakness when he described it as a benevolent fund. The hon. Member for Sowerby said that no hon. Member would grudge contributing to a benevolent fund.
I am sure of that. But a benevolent fund is not a benevolent fund if it is compulsory. Benevolence does not go hand in hand with compulsion. When money is taken from us by force, we cannot pat ourselves on the back and say we have contributed out of the freeness and generosity of our heart. Therefore, the very words "benevolent fund" knock the bottom out of this proposal. Either we must have—as the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) said—a sensible scheme for providing pensions for Members, or we must have an equally sensible proposal for a benevolent fund to which hon. Members would be asked to subscribe, as any other profession subscribes for the benefit of those of its Members who have fallen on ill times.
There were two remarks in the Prime Minister's speech which particularly struck me. The first was when he said that we should hate to think of any Member of the House whose face was familiar to us falling upon evil days and having to live under grinding poverty in his old age. How true that is—but is that a sound principle on which to base legislation? I remember that some years ago the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was making an appeal, I think with regard to unemployment insurance, and he said he was quite sure that there was no Member of the House who, if he thought that the hon. Member for Bridgeton was hungry, would not ask him to dinner. That is true. The hon. Member for Bridgeton then asked why could not Members have a little more imagination and think of the hundreds of thousands of people who were hungry, and therefore pass whatever proposal was then before the House. I had not an opportunity of replying to the hon. Member then; but could a worse ground for legislation exist than private sympathy with an individual? Hard cases make bad law, and just because we hate to think of one Member of the House suffering from poverty, why should we make a special provision in order to prevent that unhappy event ever happening, when we know that all over the country hundreds of thousands of people are suffering from poverty?
After all, I am sure that I shall have the agreement of every Member of the House when I say that men who have the uncommon qualities and the great gifts

necessary to get elected to this honourable House and to retain their seats for 10 years, are people who stand out a little from the common herd, who have distinguished themselves, who have had opportunities and who have taken their opportunities. It is my belief—an old-fashioned belief which is perhaps falling into disrepute—that every man should endeavour during his life, as he goes through it, to make provision for his old age, for his children and for those whom he may leave behind. Alas, we know too well that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who, owing to present economic conditions, cannot do that. Nobody blames them for their inability; one can only blame the system. But for those Members who have been so fortunate as to draw, for 10 years, £600 a year, for work which does not take up all their time, half-time work—[Interruption.] I speak with some experience, for I have been a Member of the House for some years, both a private Member and a Minister. Hon. Members who are prepared to exercise their leisure during the long Recess in other work, can find it. I say that a man who is for 10 years a Member of the House, drawing £600 a year, with the additional advantages which he acquires from being a Member of the House, should endeavour to make some provision for his old age and for those whom he leaves behind. There will always be sad cases. We all know of men who are born profligates. It does not matter if their salary is £6,000 instead of £600, some people have not the gift for saving money. There are some people who have drawn large salaries and made vast sums of money, and yet died insolvent. Those cases are sad, but they are not cases to be legislated for.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Ber-wick-on-Tweed said truly that he had known cases where Members had been obliged to go to their party for assistance in their old age, and he said that was not a very dignified proceeding. But is this going to be dignified? They will have to come before a tribunal, they will have to prove their penury, and they may even be so unfortunate as to be told, "Well, yours is as hard a case as any, but unfortunately the whole fund is already exhausted; and you have got to wait for one of your old colleagues to pass it on." It is an unsound and unsatisfactory system.
Another remark of the Prime Minister which impressed me, was his reference to our admiration for the system of Parliamentary government, a system which has fallen into disrepute in so large a part of the world. I doubt very much whether the carrying through of this scheme would add to the dignity of the House of Commons. It is true to say, as the Prime Minister said, that in effect there will be no charge upon the public funds, but the cry will go out that this House of Commons, having already had their salaries increased by 50 per cent., have now voted themselves, in addition, a pensions scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It will not be a fair cry, but we all have sufficient experience of politics to know that what is not quite fair very often goes a long way, carries a lot of weight, and is long remembered. In these days, I think it would be a misfortune if any decision should be taken by the House which would allow it even to be suspected that we were thinking of our own pockets, our own future, and our own comfort, rather than of the terrible demands that are being and will be made on the whole community.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: I came to this Debate with an open mind, and I had not read the White Paper till I came into the House, and not with great particularity. I do not agree with what is said in the Amendment to the Motion, and I do not anticipate that anyone will be able to raise a scandal in the country about this scheme. This is not a proposal to give pensions to all Members of Parliament. If it were, it would mean, judging from the age of many of us and the figures given in the White Paper, taking half of our salaries. This whole matter arises out of the original granting of salaries to Members of Parliament, which was never submitted to the country, for it was done by Resolution after the Osborne judgment, which held that trade unions were not entitled to apply their funds to paying the salaries of Members of Parliament. The Government of the day said that that would mean that good working-men Members of Parliament would not be able to come to the House, and therefore, it was decided to give them an allowance. There was a great agitation. Many Members got up and beat their breasts and said they would not take it—but they soon fell from grace.
I believe it would be far better if it were possible to have the old system of medieval times, when the constituencies paid their Members of Parliament. People were very reluctant to go to London; it was a long journey, and there was the danger of highwaymen, and so on. I have known of only one instance in my Parliamentary time where a Member of Parliament was paid a comparatively handsome salary by his own constituencies, and I am not going to tell where that was. [An HON. MEMBER: "Was it in Argyllshire?"] No, but if they had known that I required it, the people of Argyll have such large hearts and are so generous that they would have stood by me. I am sure of that, but fortunately, I have never required it. It would have been much better if we had had the old system, but we did not have it. We were given salaries.
Owing to the change in the value of money, the present salary is not quite as large as the salary that was originally granted. It was given after a very striking examination into the circumstances of certain Members which the Prime Minister himself made. After all, you do not want lean and hungry men sitting in Parliament. I have friends on every side of the House, and I should be very sorry to think that in their old age they were going to have a miserable time. It is true that the scheme would be compulsory. I hope it will be allowed to weigh in regard to Income Tax and Super-tax; otherwise Members who have to pay the maximum rate would be contributing a great deal more than £12. For after Income Tax and Super-tax have been paid, some of them do not get more than 6s. or 7s. in the £ of their income, so that for them it would be three times the amount—£36. It is to be compulsory, and most of us realise that we have amongst our own friends many whom we would prefer to Members of Parliament, and we would rather give them the money. But if you do not have it compulsory that just means that the generous-hearted fellows willing to toe the line when the other fellow says "I am not going to do it," will also refrain. That is the way it works. A lot of people will not pay unless they know that the other fellows are paying.
I often wonder what would happen if we had a voluntary Income Tax. I still believe there would be an enormous col-


lection of money and I base myself upon an incident at the conclusion of the great War. The Government were trying to raise a £1,000,000,000 loan, and the bankers, who as a rule think about nothing but interest, loans and collateral security, told Mr. Bonar Law that he would have to pay 8 or 10 per cent. for it. He revolted at that and said he would not pay more than 5 per cent., and then tried to raise the money, with poor success. It was suggested that he should appeal by personal letter to the payers of Super-tax, and Mr. Kennedy Jones and Mr. Charles Palmer, late editor of the "Globe," who afterwards became a Member for The Wrekin, drafted the letter, and Mr. Bonar Law copied it out and signed it. It was one of the most powerful and moving epistles I have ever read. It came to a company of which I was a director, and it impressed us so much that we subscribed the whole of our reserve funds.
A banker in Edinburgh told me that on receipt of the letter two wealthy old ladies came to sell everything they had and subscribed the money for the cause of the Government. He lent them £100,000 on their securities at the interest that the Government was paying on the loan, and they went away happy. The patriotism of rich people is just as great as that of any other class in the community, and sometimes greater, because they have a bigger stake in the country, and I for one believe that the rich men of the country would have lent the money for the War at 2½ per cent. instead of the 5 per cent. which was the lowest rate that the bankers advised. I do not believe that people in the main grudge taxation as long as they have enough to carry on with reasonable comfort. My gospel in regard to taxation is that of the poet Burns, who said:
Fortune an' thou'lt but gie me still
Hale breeks, a scone and whisky gill,
And rowth o' rhyme to rave at will Tak' a' the rest,
And dealt aboot as thy blind skill Direct thee best.
Substitute "Government" for "Fortune" and you will grasp my meaning. That should be the position in regard to the Government. If you have food, clothing and refreshment and the right to speak your mind, that is all you want. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) spoke of the benevolent funds which were voluntary, such as the funds

of the Bar. I belong to another and northern Bar. There is no voluntary system there. More than a 100 years ago there used to be cases where prosperous counsel passed away, leaving widows, with little provision for them. They were the old jolly days in Edinburgh, the days of Burns, Christopher North and Walter Scott and the others who enjoyed life in a fashion that we should not approve of now. The unfortunate widows became importunate widows and used to come up to Parliament House and waylaid their deceased husbands' boon companions for money to help them along. Their husbands' friends did it with great generosity and supported the widows of their legal brethren in that rough and ready system, but it became a bit too much, and more men crowded to the Bar than were thought necessary, so they instituted a widows' fund and all entrants to the Bar had to pay a very large sum. I had to pay a large sum because of the age limit. I was above the average age at which men join the Bar, having originally practised in Glasgow in the unlearned branch of the profession. The result is that my widow, when I have a widow, will have a more generous pension than is provided for under this scheme. We ourselves, of course, have no pensions.
There is one thing at the Scots' Bar that is puzzling some of us. One lady married two members of the Bar in succession, and we wonder whether she will be allowed to draw two pensions when the second husband is gathered in. Of course this scheme here is a very half-baked scheme. It is inadequate and the funds are very small, but it is a beginning. The country need not worry about it, because it will not cost the country a penny. None of us, if the scheme is not going to pass, is going to draw his salary less £12 and hand the rest back to the Treasury. It is a fund got up amongst ourselves. It is a kind of tontine amongst ourselves. I may explain that a tontine was when a lot of wealthy men made up a pool payable to the last survivor. Here the benefit will not go to the last survivor but to those who are unlucky after they have served 10 years, which I should think ought materially to shorten their lives. This is a beginning. As the Prime Minister has said, there is no doubt that if the fund is once established funds will accrue. Some Chequers donors may come forward with cheques. Some


Nuffield or there may be wealthy Members of the House or elsewhere who hate their next of kin and will leave capital sums to the fund. There is no Member of the House whom I dislike so much that I would not be very sorry, even if I did not know him personally, if some provision was not made for his declining years. Therefore I am going to vote for the scheme. We could not possibly take anything out of the country's funds, but we will take it from ourselves and those who do not want to pay—and I believe there are only a few in the House—ought to be made to pay with the rest of us.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: It is always a little difficult to follow my hon. and learned Friend. There is no one else who can entertain the House to anything like the extent that he can when he is in real form. I also feel obliged on this occasion to differ from the Prime Minister, for the first time for a very considerable period. I was one of those who voted in favour of the £600 a year for Members. I took the view that it was assumed, at any rate, that the salaries were being raised in order to make it possible for Members of Parliament to subsist reasonably. The £600 is not sufficient if it can be shown that, in spite of it, there is still a sufficient degree of poverty to make it necessary that some form of pension should be provided. I only ask that we should have a real benevolent fund and not a half-baked scheme. The hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick (Sir H. Seely) painted rather a pitiful picture of an old Member, I think of the Liberal party, who had retired and was obliged to go to the party to obtain some pension. He ignored one fact, that this is a benevolent scheme and anyone who applies for a pension will be in the same position as if he were going to his own party organisation, with this difference, that if he has been out of Parliament for a period of time he is going to a committee of people who know very little about him. This is a matter which, for better or for worse, should be decided by the House on their own. We were told that the increase of salaries to £600 would raise a howl, but it has done nothing of the sort. Although I think this a, had scheme, it cannot be suggested that it lays any charge on the public purse.
There is one point that has not been touched upon. The hon. Member for

Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) said this was a scheme to help the very poorest. That is not absolutely correct, because it puts a premium upon safe as against unsafe seats. Those who will benefit are those who have contrived to remain in Parliament for at any rate 10 years. There may be some who do not represent the safe seats—and it is not the richest who represent the unsafe seats, whichever side it may be—who will be contributing towards a scheme from which they will have no opportunity of benefiting at all. When you come down to the safe seats, there are, of course, large numbers who will never apply for a pension at all because they are gentlemen of money and have safe seats. Those who have safe seats are very largely the representatives of the great trade unions, because the safest seats, from the point of view of the Labour party, are those where some great trade union is the dominating factor in selecting the candidate.
I am not saying anything against that, but I cannot help feeling that an argument against the proposed scheme is to be found in those instances where a man has been a trade unionist all his life and has given his best services in the first instance, to his trade union and incidently to a constituency in Parliament. I think that the trade union in a case of that kind ought to be in a position to enable that man to retire when he desires to retire. That being the case, I tell the House frankly that I find myself in this position, and I think many other hon. Members find themselves in the same position. I have, I hope, many friends on the other side of the House, and, like others who have spoken, I should hate to see any Member of this House, to whatever party he belongs, reduced to destitution, but I feel that under a scheme of this kind I might, in certain circumstances, be called upon to contribute to the pension of an hon. Member opposite in order to save expense to the trade union, the body which, above all else, he had represented in the House. That is one of the disadvantages of a compulsory scheme.
There are two alternatives. One might consider a voluntary scheme or schemes arranged by each party for its own Members. If a scheme of that kind were found to be inadequate for the purpose I should be prepared to advocate both on the Floor of this House and in the country


if necessary, the addition of some extra sum to the £600 a year to meet cases of difficulty. I would be prepared to advocate, say, a payment of £50 a year extra as a provision for the old age of Members who required it. I should not be afraid to stand on any Conservative platform and justify a public expenditure of that kind, if it appeared to be necessary, and I think that would be far better than to play about as we are doing to-day with a scheme which is half-way between a pension scheme and a benevolent scheme. If the workman is worthy of his hire, if service has been given to the State, then the country ought to be prepared to see that those who have rendered that service are enabled to make provision for their old age. It should easily be possible to meet the few cases which could not be dealt with by the different parties. Therefore, although I am not entirely in favour of everything in my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, I feel obliged to vote against the proposed scheme.

7.19 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I have listened carefully to the arguments used in this Debate and have heard Members on all sides of the House express their willingness to pay £12 a year and their anxiety to help any Member who may be in difficulties. It has struck me that we here to-night are not merely speaking for ourselves, in our own various private capacities. We are about to take a decision for the Members of the House of Commons not only of to-day, but of to-morrow, and probably of some years to come, and what we are deciding is simply whether the salary of a Member of Parliament is or is not to be reduced from £600 to £588. We are asked to say whether £12 per year, per head, is to be paid into this fund for pension purposes by Members of Parliament. We are not being asked here to do some gracious or kindly act, and I think some of the speeches which we have heard have tended to lead us away from the main point. I think it is true that if any of us to-day knew of the case of any Member who was in difficulties and if we were asked to subscribe to help that Member, we would be willing to do so, and it would not matter in the slightest in which part of the House that Member sat. But we are asked to-night to do something else.
When the salaries of Members of Parliament were raised to £600 a year we were told from both Front Benches that the matter had been carefully considered, that Members had been interviewed and had stated their difficulties, and that those who went into the matter decided that the £600 was necessary in order to give certain people, especially young married men with families, the opportunity of coming into this House and carrying on their political work. I was opposed to the raising of salaries. I wanted to see a different scheme put into force, but what carried more weight than anything else in that discussion was the point that there were Members in this House who were really up against serious difficulties, and who were driven to wonder how they could carry on their work on the original salary, and that was said to apply in particular to young men with their political careers before them. But if it was necessary and right, as was argued then, to give those people £600 a year, if that sum was required by them in order that they should carry on their work, why should we now say to them, "That does not matter; you can give up £12 a year for this purpose?" If, on the other hand, the £600 a year was not required by them, then it seems to show that we in this House have been careless in looking after finance and economy, in giving that £600 a year.
We are told that by this contribution we can accumulate a fund of £7,000 a year. If we can give up £7,000 a year without injuring any Members of Parliament, are we to deal with that £7,000 a year as if it did not matter to the taxpayer, and dispose of it without the authority of the taxpayer? It is the taxpayers money and if we can do without it, if it is the case that Members of Parliament are not absolutely in need of £600 a year, as we were told last year they were, then we ought to give up that money to the taxpayers. I believe that it is wrong to assume that we are dealing here with our own money. We are not. We are arranging that Members of Parliament in the future shall be paid £588 a year, and if we were right in thinking that Members of Parliament would experience terrible difficulties on anything less than £600 a year, we have no right to do that.
What are we to say to other people who come to us and ask to be allowed to have voluntary schemes of pensions?


Are we to carry out a scheme of this kind and say to others that we cannot help them? I would far rather see a voluntary insurance scheme for all salaries up to £600 a year, in which everybody, men and women, both inside and outside this House would participate. I think that would be much fairer. In considering the scheme now before us, we ought to remember that this £7,000 a year, which we are told is only a small amount, is not our money. We asked the taxpayers for it. The taxpayers are paying it and if it is not required in order that Members of this House shall not have difficulties in carrying out their public duties, then we ought to give it back to the taxpayers. The hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) mentioned that a sum of £5,000 had not been drawn—I presume because some hon. Members are not taking the full amount of their salaries. The hon. Member seemed to suggest that we could use that sum for a scheme of this kind, but, again, that is the taxpayer's money, and if it is not required for the purpose for which it was given, it ought to be restored to the taxpayer.

Sir H. Seely: I did not say that the amount was due to Members not drawing salaries. It arises from lapses of time pending by-elections.

Miss Horsbrugh: I understood that it was money not taken by Members of Parliament, and I feel that that money ought to go to the relief of the taxpayer. We are told that it is only a small amount, but I do not think that in these days we ought to talk about £7,000 as something which does not matter. If we do, the taxpayers are likely to think that all other branches of the administration are run in the same way. If we are to have economy, we must have cheese-paring if necessary in all departments, and I do not believe that this proposal represents the proper way of dealing with such a matter at the present time. When we look round we see misery; we see people wanting other forms of insurance or pensions, and yet we propose to say that because we, as Members of Parliament, do not require the full amount of our salaries, we are therefore, going to use the money to start a scheme of this kind. We are proposing to start off a benevolent scheme which has not been worked out on any actuarial basis, which has not

been properly prepared and which will give rise to all kinds of difficulties. We shall have to choose between different people and it will be very difficult, for instance, for a man who has been in strong disagreement with many others in this House to apply for a pension for himself from this fund. It will be far more difficult for the widow of such a man to apply for a pension from the fund. If we had a proper general scheme of pensions we could consider these matters on a fair basis, but I dislike differentiation between Members of Parliament in money matters.
There is another side to the question, in the constituencies. Suppose a man has served for a long period in this House and is just under 60 years of age. Suppose he finds that if he survives one more election he will be sure of his pension. Do not hon. Members think that it will be very difficult in those circumstances to oppose such a man in a constituency? Should I want to fight an election, if I were told that my opponent was in great difficulties and had only to be elected once more in order to qualify for a pension? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes, when it comes to by-elections, things of that kind will crop up and I believe that hon. Members opposite are just as soft-hearted as hon. Members on this side, and will take the same view in such cases. Then as regards finding candidates for by-elections, hon. Members opposite know quite well what will happen, whether it is one party or the other, in the case of a man who has served the party, who is approaching 60 years of age and who requires only another term in Parliament to qualify for a pension. Of course, he will ask the party to give him a chance if a by-election arises, and of course it will be up to the party, if possible, to give him that chance. It would be almost cruel if they did not. Thus again we are bringing in this idea of the difference between the rich and the poor. There is very often a kind of inverted snobbery in these matters. If a proper pension scheme were brought in and put before the country, under which any Member of Parliament having served a certain number of years would get a pension, and in which there would be no differentiation, I would not disagree with it. But this is a benevolent scheme or a provident scheme for which the taxpayers will pay


and that, I think, is wrong, and I hope the House will vote against it.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Lyons: Before the House proceeds to a decision upon this matter I should like to be enlightened upon one question. We were given to understand that the ten years which must elapse under this proposal before a pension could be paid, would begin to run after the legislation has been passed and that no period prior to the passage of the suggested legislation, could be counted towards that ten years. I think we ought to have some more enlightenment on that point than has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall). We ought to have a definite statement making the matter much more clear than it has been made up to the present.

7.30 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): There is no doubt about it. The scheme contemplated here, which has been worked out by this Committee with so much care, is a scheme which would begin to operate from the time when the necessary Act of Parliament was passed. It would be a necessary condition for any possible beneficiary that he should have been a Member of the House after the passing of the Act and that he should have been a Member for a period of 10 years, but it would not be necessary that he should begin to qualify for his 10 years' service after the Act of Parliament was passed. I have had occasion to be in close consultation with those who have drawn up the scheme, and in order to see how it worked one naturally had a draft of the Bill prepared, and whatever else may be doubtful in the matter, there is no doubt whatever about that. The scheme when it came into force would start, as has already been pointed out, with a sum of £7,000 at the end of the first year. In the ordinary way, I agree, if you have a fund administered by trustees, of the nature of a pension fund, you have to begin by accumulating a capital fund, but this is not in that sense an actuarially calculated pension fund, and inasmuch as each year there is this contribution of £7,000 or thereabouts, it would be possible, I am told, to have a certain sum that could be administered at the end of the first year. I do not think there is any doubt about that.
As I have intervened in the Debate, may I make two further observations? I think the Debate on one side or the other has brought out all the points, and it will be for the House to decide on them when we vote, but I would like to make an observation on what I think is the entirely misleading and mistaken suggestion that in some mysterious way, directly or indirectly, these benefits could be properly described as benefits arising out of public funds. There is a test to be applied at once by every Member of the House which will show conclusively whether that is so or not. If it were so, before we started upon any legislation about it there would have to be a Resolution in Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of mulcting public funds of the sum which is involved. You might as well say that because a Minister is paid a salary and out of that salary pays his Income Tax, therefore the Minister's Income Tax is paid out of public funds.

Mr. Macquisten: Supposing certain Members were hard-up, and we agreed to have a whip round for them, would that not amount to the same thing?

Sir J. Simon: My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. I went with him in most of his speech, and I think he put it in a clear and accurate way when he said that, subject always to the point of legislation, this is really a domestic operation. We are all meeting together, if we are private Members, receiving £600 or if we are Ministers more, and agreeing together that we will each of us put up this much out of our own pocket for the purpose of making a fund. It is really a pity, if there is to be a controversy on this subject, that any encouragement should be given by any Member of Parliament, whatever his view on this matter, which would suggest that we are engaged now in considering whether Members of Parliament should help themselves out of public funds for a pension scheme.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), who moved the Amendment, finished his speech by reading a letter which he said he had received. It was perfectly obvious when you listened to the letter that the gentleman who had written it was under the impression that this was a proposal by which the country was going to make a new payment to Mem-


bers of Parliament or to ex-Members of Parliament. Of course, my hon. and gallant Friend knows that that is not so, and I can only say that I hope he wrote back to his correspondent and explained that to him. His correspondent said that it was the country that was going to pay pensions to Members or ex-Members of Parliament, but that is not so. This is a proposal by which Members of Parliament should themselves club together for the purpose of making a fund. That may he wise or unwise, but it is surely very wrong for any of us who understand the nature of the operation to give any encouragement to the idea that this is providing out of public funds a new pension for a privileged class.

Sir A. Southby: Might I not ask if it is not a fact that the salaries paid to Members of Parliament are paid out of public funds? If this legislation is introduced and passed, it will have the effect of reducing the salaries of Members of Parliament by £12 in the case of each Member. Therefore, that £12 will have been provided out of public funds to each Member, and if it is devoted to another purpose than that for which it was originally voted, it is surely true to say—and I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend as a lawyer, were he on the other side, would argue it much better than I can—that this £7,000 was produced and has in fact come out of public funds which the country authorised Parliament to pay to its Members as salaries.

Sir J. Simon: My hon. and gallant Friend will see that that sort of argument could be applied equally if no new Act of Parliament was involved at all. Supposing we all met in a Committee Room upstairs and said, "We are each getting £600 a year out of public funds; how would it be for each of us to put £12 into this new collection?" Would it be correct to say that our contribution in such circumstances was a contribution out of public funds?

Sir A. Southby: It would be a voluntary contribution.

Sir J. Simon: Then it is agreed, is it, as I think it must be, that if this were done by voluntary arrangement, there would be nothing paid out of public funds? Then how can it come out of public funds because there is an Act of Parliament to regulate the fund?

Mr. Denman: Is it not true that the State does in fact contribute between a quarter and a third of the proposed £7,000 by reason of its loss of Income Tax? We shall receive a lesser income, and we shall pay a lesser tax, and of the £7,000 the Treasury will suffer by reason of that loss of tax.

Sir J. Simon: That may be a point to be raised when the Bill is being considered, but the principle of the thing is plain enough, and the principle of the thing is that when a salary has been provided out of public funds, it is open to Members of Parliament, if they so decide, to say how a portion of that salary shall be devoted. That is surely a very simple proposition, and all that I ask is that whatever view we may take, we are in honour bound not to encourage people to say, "There you are, Members of Parliament, voting yourselves out of public funds a pension when there are so many other cases of hardship in the world."
The only other observation that I wish to make is this: Really, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), though I think she was right in her first statement, was quite wrong in the conclusion which she drew from it. She said, and very accurately, that in principle this is a provision by which the £600 now paid would in the future be £588, which would be left for free use and £12 which would be earmarked for this particular purpose. That is true, but she went on to argue—and in so doing I think she was wrong—that we have no right to do that, because, she said, only two years ago we decided upon a particular sum as a salary on the ground that no smaller sum would do. That is not so. I have before me the words which were used in the Debate by the present Prime Minister, who discussed the question in that Debate as to whether the increase should be an increase to £500 or an increase to £600, and he said:
I do not think it is possible to fix any figure and say that is the exact amount that is appropriate, but the late Prime Minister (that is, Lord Baldwin) and I, having given the best consideration we could to the matter, came to the conclusion that of the alternative figures that we considered, £500 and £600, £500 still would not be sufficient for a certain number of Members, and that it would be better, therefore, to adopt a figure which would settle the matter for an indefinite period rather than fix again a sum


which would give rise to complaints."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1937; col. 1052, Vol. 325.]
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in that same speech, and indeed I also when I spoke in that Debate, expressly referred to this proposal that there should be a pension fund. We both of us pointed out that if there was an increase of salary to £600, it might enable some pension scheme to be provided, but we both of us urged on the House that it would be wrong to complicate what we were then doing by introducing conditions about pensions, because they would be very difficult to work out. We both said that there should be a committee appointed as soon as possible to go into the question so that we should be able to advise the House as to whether it was possible to have any scheme of the kind. It is perfectly open to any hon. Member in any part of the House to be opposed to the proposal, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee was really wrong

in making an argument on the figure of £600 as though that shut out the legitimate opportunity of establishing a pension fund at all. The matter has been debated at considerable length, and I am certain that hon. Members would now like it to be decided, but I hope I may be excused for having pointed out these two matters.

Mr. Macquisten: Will this exaction be free of tax? Shall we be taxed on it, or will it be allowed to be deducted?

Sir J. Simon: That is essentially a matter to be considered during the discussion of the Bill, but I do not think a decision "Aye" or "No" as to the pension scheme ought to be come to on an issue of that sort.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 103.

Division No. 29.]
AYES.
[7.44 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Ede, J. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Lathan, G.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lawson, J. J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Errington, E.
Leach, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lee, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Leslie, J. R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Liddall, W. S.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Frankel, D.
Lipson, D. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gallacher, W.
Lloyd, G. W.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Gardner. B. W.
Lunn, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Garro Jones, G. M.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Banfield, J. W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Macdonald, G. (Inca)


Barnes, A. J.
Gibbins, J.
McEntee, V. La T.


Barr, J.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
McGhee, H. G.


Barrio, Sir C. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
McGovern, J.


Ballenger, F. J.
Gluokstein, L. H.
MacLaren, A.


Benson, G.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maclean, N.


Bevan, A.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)


Bossom, A. C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
MacNeill Weir, L.


Broad, F. A.
Granted, D. R.
Macquisten, F. A.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Maitland, Sir Adam


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mander, G. la M.


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Margesson, Capt, Rt. Han. H. D. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Groves, T. E.
Markham, S. F.


Cape, T.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Marshall, F.


Cassette, T.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Mathers. G.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Miteham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Messer, F.


Channon, H.
Harvey, Sir G.
Milner, Major J.


Charleton, H. C.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Montague, F.


Chater, D.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Moore, Lieut.-Cot. Sir T. C. R.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hayday, A.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Cocks, F. S.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Muff, G.


Collindridge, F.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Cove, W. G.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Oliver, C. H.


Daggar, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefrast)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Dalton, H.
Hopkin, D.
Paling, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Parker, J.


Davies, S. O. (Marthyr)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parkinson, J. A.


Day, H.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pearson, A.


De Chair, S. S.
John, W.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Dobbie, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Han. F. W.


Doland, G. F.
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Pilkington, R.


Drewe, C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Poole, C. C.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Kirby, B. V.
Price, M. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kirkwood, D.
Quibell, D. J. K.




Rayner, Major R. H.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Viant, S. P.


Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Walkden, A. G.


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Evan


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Less- (K'ly)
Watkins, F. C.


Riley, B.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Watson, W. McL.


Ritson, J.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Watt, Major G. S. Harvis


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Sorenson, R. W.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Spears, Brigadier-Central E. L.
Welsh, J. C.


Rothschild, J. A. de
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Westwood, J.


Salt, E. W.
Stephen, C.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)
Stokes, R. R.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Samuel, M. R. A.
Storey, S.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Sanders, W. S.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Seely, Sir H. M.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Selley, H. R.
Sutcliffe, H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Saxton, T. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Schuster, Sir G. E.
Thorne, W.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Silkin, L.
Thurtle, E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Silverman, S. S.
Tinker, J. J.



Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Titchfield, Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Simpson, F. B.
Tomlison, G.
Sir Assheton Pownall and Sir Francis Fremantle.




NOES.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Hammersley, S. S.
Peake, O.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Hailgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Holy-Hutchinson, M. R.
Procter, Major H. A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Pertsm'h)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Radford, E. A.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Higgs, W. F.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Blair, Sir R.
Holmes, J. S.
Ramsbetham, H.


Blaker, Sir R.
Hopkinson, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hunloke, H. P.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bull, B. B.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Kimball, L.
Scott, Lord William


Chapman, A. (Ruthergton)
Lamb, Sir J, Q.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Farter)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Snadden, W. MeN.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Loath, Sir J. W.
Spans, W. P.


Cox, Trevor
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stuart, Han. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Pate
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crossley, A. C.
Lyons, A. M.
Tate, Mavis C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Mebane, W. (Huddersfiled)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Davidson, Viscountess
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Macdonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Lieut.-Cot. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duggan, H. J.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wiskham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Eastwood, J. F.
Marsden, Commander A.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Ellis, Sir G.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Emery, J. F.
Maxell, Hon. S. A.
Wragg, H.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mayhew. Lt.-Cot. J.



Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Medlicott, F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Commander Sir Archibald


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Munro, P.
Southby and Major Sir George Davies.


Grimston, R. V.
Nall, Sir J.



Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Pensions for Members of the House of Commons and is in favour of the initiation of legislation to carry out its proposals which impose no charge upon the taxpayer.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).

7.53 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of

business in the King's Bench Division requires that two vacancies in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench Division should be filled, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancies accordingly, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, as amended by any subsequent enactment.
Since the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act, 1935, the position with regard to the judges in the King's Bench Division has been this. There are 19 judges of the King's Bench Division authorised by that enactment, subject to this, that vacancies which may occur over and above the number of 17 cannot be filled except on an humble Address pre-


sented to both Houses of Parliament in the terms of this Motion. That is to say, under that Act 19 judges were appointed, and vacancies have, in fact, occurred reducing the number to 17. Appointments are made without the necessity of any Address to keep the number up to 17, but in order that the number may be 19 an Address in the terms of the Motion requires to be passed by this House and another place. At present, owing to the vacancies which have occurred, the number of judges of the King's Bench Division, in addition to the Lord Chief Justice, is 17, and the object of this Motion is to enable two further judges to be appointed.
Anyone familiar, as many right hon. and hon. Members are, with the existing position will, I think, recognise the desirability and, indeed, the necessity of this Motion. During recent months there has been serious congestion on the Northern, the Midland and the Western circuits, and representations have been received from many quarters with regard to it. The position in London equally, I think, requires that this Motion should be passed. There has been a substantial increase in the number of cases awaiting trial in the King's Bench Division. There are arrears to be worked off and it is, as everyone will agree, desirable that arrears should not accumulate, and that the strength of the judiciary should be such that cases as they become ready for trial should receive trial and be disposed of. I do not want to trouble the House with figures because the case for this Motion is plain from the position as I have indicated it on circuit and also in London. So far as the position on circuit is concerned, I may remind the House that in the course of last year four commissioners had to he appointed in order to do the work and to supplement the work done by the judges.
The only criticism which I anticipate with regard to this Motion is that it might have been moved before and the question may be raised whether it is sufficient to deal with the volume of work both on circuit and in London which comes before the assizes or the courts here. In that connection I would like to remind right hon. and hon. Members of the fact that last year Parliament passed a Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act under which three additional Lord

Justices have been appointed to the Court of Appeal. When that Measure was before the House I said that it was not anticipated that these three additional Lord Justices would be required all the year round to sit in a third division of the Court of Appeal. It was anticipated, therefore, that their services would from time to time, and for substantial periods, be available for dealing with the work of the King's Bench Division in London, and so assist the judges of that Division and the Lord Chief Justice, who presides over them. I think it is fair to say that owing to causes which quite reasonably were not anticipated—one or two exceptionally long cases and, I think, some illness—the assistance which the Lords Justices appointed under that Act will in normal times give to the work of the King's Bench Division has been less than might reasonably have been anticipated in the period since that Act was passed. In this connection I should also like to refer to another Act, passed quite recently, under which extended jurisdiction is conferred upon quarter sessions which it is anticipated may give some relief to the work coming before assize judges.
Therefore, in considering whether the judges who can be appointed if this Motion is passed will be adequate to deal with the existing congestion and arrears and keep matters up to date in future, it is right to bear in mind both the Acts to which I have referred. When the Act of 1935 was passed and raised the possible establishment of judges in the King's Bench Division from 17 to 19—subject to a Resolution of Parliament—there were considerable arrears in the King's Bench Division. The appointment under that Act of the two extra judges for which it provided did deal, and deal satisfactorily, I think, with the arrears which existed at that time. In considering the adequacy, therefore, of the present Motion, one has to remember what happened then, and in addition to bear in mind the assistance which can be given by the three extra Lords Justices appointed under the other Act when they are not required to preside in the Third Division of the Court of Appeal.
I hope that I am interpreting the wishes of hon. Members in not going into detailed figures, because to anyone who is familiar with this matter there is really no argument about the necessity of this addition to the judicial strength, but


I should like to say that the two other Acts to which I have referred, and in particular the Act which added the three Lords justices in respect of the Court of Appeal, are evidence, if evidence were necessary, of the importance which my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor attaches to seeing that there are in all courts, and in all Divisions of the Supreme Court, an adequate number of judges to ensure that cases are dealt with with all reasonable promptness and expedition. I have good grounds for asking the House to believe that this Motion, if the House thinks fit to pass it, as I hope and believe it will, will, together with the other Measures to which I have referred, produce the result which everybody desires to see, but I can give the House the most complete assurance that my Noble Friend will have this matter under his constant consideration, because he realises to the full the importance of seeing that in all the Divisions in London, as also on circuit, the judicial strength is adequate to deal promptly and expeditiously with the cases which are set down for trial and which the parties desire to be heard.

Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make this point clear? The Motion speaks of appointing judges to fill two vacancies. His speech has left me wondering whether he meant two or four judges—whether there are two vacancies to be filled and two more judges, making four in all, are also to be appointed.

The Attorney-General: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. The position is this: that under the Amendment which was made in 1935 the full complement of the King's Bench Division is 19 judges, subject to this qualification, that when vacancies occur and instead of 19 judges there are only IS, or instead of 18 only 17, you cannot go back to the number of 19 judges without a Resolution of Parliament. If, having got to 17, the number of judges fell to 16, that one vacancy could be filled without such a Resolution; but to get hack from 17 to 19 you want a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament in the terms of this Motion. Under this Motion, if passed, two extra judges, but not four, will be appointed.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Benson: The learned Attorney-General put up a very strong case against

any possible criticism that he was flooding the Bench with judges. He argued very earnestly that there was adequate work for these two extra judges to do, and I do not think that there is any danger of anybody who has had any experience of the congestion in the courts being likely to attack him on that point. On the other hand, I think the gravaman of most people's criticism would be that to appoint only two new judges is really playing with a very serious and very troublesome problem. The Attorney-General suggested that these two new judges would enable the courts to deal with cases with more reasonable promptness. Much depends on who is to be the judge of what is reasonable. At the moment there are a large number of cases awaiting trial, cases pushed over from one assizes to the next, invariably because there is a shortage of judges, and despite the fact that there have recently been as many as four commissioners assisting judges on assize. It is not merely the delay of postponing a case from one assize to another of which litigants have a right to complain. There is another form of delay which is even more serious, because it is more general, and that is the appalling waste of the time of litigants, of witnesses, of solicitors and of everybody else involved in a case in being kept hanging around the court uncertain of whether or when their case is to be heard. Wherever assizes are held one finds the courts thronged with people who are waiting, waiting, waiting, never knowing when their case will be heard. It may come on in an hour or it may not be heard for three or four days, but they have to be there or they miss their place. That is a far greater cause of trouble and expense than the putting off of a case from one assize to the next.
Let me give the House an experience of my own to show what it is I am really complaining about. At a recent assize I was to be a witness in a motoring case. On the first day of the assize I received a letter from the solicitor in charge of the case to the effect that the case was, as he said "One out of to-morrow's list." It remained "One out of to-morrow's list" for more than 10 days, during which time I was in London anticipating being called by telegram at any moment to go up North. Eventually the case got from the proud position of being "One out of tomorrow's list" into "In to-morrow's


list" and it remained "In to-morrow's list" for another four or five days. Finally, I received a telegram asking me to go. I had to leave London on the night before the case was to be heard. I went up to the assize town, and there I found the litigant and several other witnesses all forgathered in order that they might be at the court at 10 o'clock the next morning. The next day the solicitor and a number of other witnesses arrived from various parts of England—because the case was being tried far away from where everybody concerned lived. We hung about the assize court until four o'clock in the afternoon, and then it was decided that even if the case were opened it could not be finished in time and it was put off to the March assize.
In that case you had a litigant, two or three business men, including an accountant, as witnesses, all forced to waste a couple of days, and the case was not even heard. I suppose that a similar waste of time of a number of busy people will take place again next March, when the case will be heard. That waste of two or three days apparently goes on in almost every case, and is due to the fact that there are so few judges that every minute of a judge's time is so valuable that it must be occupied. Dozens of busy people must hang about for days in order that a judge may avoid wasting half an hour. The mere appointment of two fresh judges will not solve that difficulty.
What we really require is sufficient judges so that it may be possible for a case to be put down for hearing on a certain day, with the probable expectation that it will be heard on that day. One does not expect 100 per cent. certainty. If you attempt to adopt the system that the case shall be heard on a certain day irrespective of the condition of business, you may get a case being adjourned to make room for another case which has been set down for that day. Nobody asks for that position to arise. An increase in the number of judges, even if it did not give 100 per cent. certainty as to when a case could be heard, would at any rate have the effect of reducing enormously the amount of waiting and of hanging about which now takes place, and would give a high probability of a case being heard on the day for which it was set down. It would bring about a very big reduction in the present uncertainty.
What is the objection to the appointment of more judges? The Royal Commission considered the matter recently, and the only argument I can find against the appointment of more judges is that the field of selection is limited. The Lord Chancellor, himself a judge, said:
Any increase in numbers must, so far as it goes, tend somewhat to lower the quality 
I have not the slightest doubt that the standard of our British Bench is extraordinarily high. No one challenges it, but it is a very solemn thought if, out of 40,000,000 people in this population we can succeed in finding only 19 men capable of sitting on the King's Bench. It may be theoretically true that if a larger number of judges were appointed the standard would be reduced. If you appoint one judge only, naturally you will be able to pick the best man, whereas if you appoint 20 judges you will have to take the 20 best men in England who may not be up to the standard of the one; but does anybody seriously suggest that to appoint four more judges is likely seriously to reduce the standard of the Bench?
The Attorney-General is moving to appoint two more judges. On what basis has he decided to make the appointments? Does he say: "We have a certain standard to maintain and we have succeeded in finding two King's Counsel who come up to the standard which we desire; therefore we shall appoint them"? Is the standard his basis? Or does he say: "We shall create these two appointments and chance whether we can get two men capable of filling them"? Nineteen is an entirely arbitrary number. There is no virtue in the number 19. Whenever you make an appointment you have to take one policy or the other: wait until you have a man capable of filling the position or decide to fill the position and take the best man you can. It is nonsense to say that to appoint three or four more judges will play such havoc with the standard of the Bench as to poison British justice.
Finally, even admitting the argument that a small increase in the number of judges is likely to reduce the standard of average quality, I think that the average man would rather have his case settled by a judge of a standard of which we can certainly pick 24 men than waste his time and money and the time and money


of his witnesses and solicitors, hanging round assize courts simply and solely because we have not taken the trouble to appoint an adequate number of judges.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Evans: The Attorney-General has made out a good case for requiring further assistance in the administration of justice in this country at the present time. But the matter ought not to be left there. It ought to be borne in mind by the Attorney-General and by the Government that several commissions and committees have in recent years considered questions affecting our administration of justice. All the committees and commissions were composed of men of very great ability and experience and they all made recommendations, the implementation of which they felt to be necessary for the more successful administration of justice. It would be improper for me to argue the respective merits of the suggestions which they made, but I believe that the time has come when the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers who advise the Government ought to persuade the Government to make some declaration as to the importance they attach to the recommendations made by those committees and commissions. The trouble is that, despite the valuable inquiries of those bodies, we still do not know the attitude of the Government to their recommendations, and when the Government ask us to consider a Motion of this sort we are entitled to mention that fact.
The Motion does not meet the difficulty. We are asked to approve the appointment of two additional judges, but that would not be a permanent solution of the difficulties which now present themselves to those who are engaged in administering justice. It is true that those commissions and committees have been established, but beyond that very little has been done. There are jury and non-jury cases now being tried which were set down for trial as early as May of last year. We should not overlook the significance of that fact, because it means that litigation is delayed for nine months, largely owing to the lack of judges available for the trial of the cases. If that be true—and it is true—the appointment of two judges is obviously not going to solve the difficulty. True, it is an argument in support of the Attorney-General in asking for the

appointment of those two judges, but it is equally true that such appointments will not relieve us of this situation in the future.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to a fact which, of course, is perfectly well known to the Law Officers, namely, that one of the most marked features of litigation, particularly on the common law side, is the very large number of personal injury cases. I cannot argue the merits of the recommendations and suggestions which have been made by these commissions, but I would ask the Attorney-General whether it is not possible to consider giving the master, on a summons for direction, power to direct that these personal injury cases shall be more frequently tried in the county court. These cases do not involve, as a rule, many difficult questions of law. They involve questions of fact, with which county court judges are dealing daily. It may mean that a larger number of county court judges would be required, but, on the other hand, the amount of travelling necessary for witnesses and others engaged in these cases would be reduced considerably, owing to the wider distribution of the county courts as compared with assizes. It would also have the effect of reducing delay in the trial of cases, which, of course, is a matter of great importance to the parties to actions of this kind.
I stress this point for another reason, which also will be within the knowledge of the Law Officers. On certain circuits in this country, especially those which include the largest industrial centres, the increase of work at the assizes during the last few years has been very largely due to the number of personal injury cases. At some assizes, I am told, these cases have accounted for 80 per cent. of the civil list, and, therefore, my previous argument also applies here. If the present condition continues, and these cases are not otherwise dealt with, the number of judges attending certain assizes will have to be increased, and that would involve the very thing which, I imagine, the Law Officers and everyone responsible for the conduct of the courts wants to avoid, namely, the taking of more High Court judges away from London.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) has already pointed out that this is not a Motion which will involve any expense to the country. I think it will


be admitted that the cost of all the judges of the High Court is always covered by the fees and stamp and other duties, so that the administration of justice does not involve the country in any expense. But, even if it did, I venture to point out that the administration of justice is one of the most essential privileges of the British system, and it would be entirely wrong to think that the country was making any profit out of the granting of this essential service to its citizens. In supporting the Motion, I would respectfully ask the Attorney-General whether he cannot give consideration to the wider questions which I have ventured to mention.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Errington: I should like to amplify what has been said by the last speaker with regard to assizes. The Attorney-General mentioned the Criminal Justice Act, which authorised the appointment of a third court of appeal, but, so far as I have been able to see, the assizes, particularly on the Northern Circuit, have benefited but little from that. There may be some benefit—I do not know—as a result of the extended jurisdiction of quarter sessions, but it can be stated quite definitely and categorically that the extension of the limit for county court cases has not decreased the number of civil cases at the Liverpool and Manchester Assizes, while the divorce work at those assizes has very much increased. The result is that two judges are expected, in a period of between three weeks and a month, to deal with upwards of 160 civil cases, 50 or 60 criminal cases, and 200 undefended divorce cases. It is clear that, if those two judges try to do that, they will either be in the position of having to sit extremely late, which is undesirable, or of putting large numbers of cases in the list in the hope that some of them may be settled.
It is true that during the past year two commissioners have been appointed, and I think it is an extremely good thing that they were commissioners who were properly sent down and paid for their work, and not commissioners taken from the King's Counsel actually attending assizes. There seems, however, to he no reason at all why these commissioners should not be replaced by High Court judges. I feel very strongly that it will have to be realised in the near future that. with the

large amount of work in industrial cities, at any rate in Lancashire, and possibly also in the Midlands, it will be necessary for three judges to go on assize. The administration of justice should be speedy. It is of vital importance, and, as the last speaker has said, no idea of false economy should interfere with it. The methods that have been adopted hitherto have, in my submission, done very little to ease the situation. The matter can really only be dealt with by staffing the judiciary who go on assize adequately to deal with the work which they have to do in a limited time. I suppose there is no one in the House who really knows anything about these matters who does not realise that it is essential that this Motion should be passed, and I hope that, as a result of its passing some relief in the form of judicial help will come at any rate to the Northern Circuit.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I think it is a thousand pities that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) is not here to-night, because he has made himself in some sort the leader of a kind of crusade in this matter, and I think the Debate would have benefited very greatly if he had been present to make his usual valuable contribution to it. The present state of the administration of justice is, I will not say a public scandal, but rapidly tending in that direction. If it be true that justice delayed is justice denied, we have to accept the fact that justice is denied to a great number of litigants and potential litigants. The Attorney-General said quite truly that during the past year no fewer than four commissioners had to be appointed and sent to various towns. I think that two went on the Northern Circuit, in order to relieve to some extent the congestion there. He seemed to adduce that as an argument in support of his Motion this evening, but if he gets his Motion—as I feel sure he will—that will not in any way relieve the congestion at assizes. You can relieve congestion at assizes only if you send more judges on each particular assize or if you have more assizes in a year; and neither of these things is proposed.

The Attorney-General: One of the objects of the Motion is to enable more judges to be sent.

Mr. Silverman: In that event, two will not take you very far. There are four


assizes a year at many of the larger assize centres, and two judges go to each of them. The four commissioners last year have not relieved the congestion. What is the Attorney-General then proposing? Does he contemplate having two more judges and sending out four commissioners as well; or will the two judges take the place of the four commissioners? In either event, it will not deal with the congestion. There are at this moment at the assizes at Liverpool, which started yesterday or the day before, over 100 cases. More than 80 of them were in the list of the last assize and were not reached. There is no possibility of these 100 cases being tried at this assize. It seems that this problem is being approached in altogether too casual a way. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) pointed out that on assize—and, I think, in London, too—a very large proportion of the cases are running-down cases, personal accident cases, and he suggested that one way to relieve the congestion would be to give power in a greater number of those cases to send them to the county courts. I do not see how you can say that the jurisdiction of the county courts shall be extended in respect of one particular class of case and not of another.
I would remind the Attorney-General that in respect of the two Acts to which he referred, and on which he relied to relieve congestion in the future, the Government almost went out of their way to limit the effectiveness of the proposals. Undoubtedly it is now the law that certain quarter sessions can now deal with cases that were previously triable only at Assizes, but the Government resisted great pressure from all parts of the House to have that system of quarter sessions jurisdiction made universal. They resisted it successfully, and the result is that the relief to Assizes which might have been afforded in that way has not been achieved. Similarly, in the same Measure there was a proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the county courts, and the Government again successfully resisted proposals, thus making the relief that could be afforded in the High Court very much less effective than it might reasonably have been. I do not know that the appointment of two judges is going to help. I do not know that the appointment of half a dozen judges would help.
It is clear to most people who have any experience, no matter how limited, in these matters that what is really required is a large-scale reorganisation of the administration of justice in this country. It would have to be on a large scale. The only way to relieve congestion in the High Court is by an extension of jurisdiction in the county courts. But you will not have support for that unless county court judges are appointed from men of the same calibre, on the whole, as High Court judges. Given that, you could safely extend the jurisdiction of the county court very largely indeed, so as to get good and efficient administration of justice. I hope the time will come when this or some other Government will address itself to the whole problem in a large way, in a way adequate to what I think everybody realises are the actual needs of the situation. While no one would oppose the present proposal, one supports it—or fails to oppose it—with some doubt and some diffidence, realising that it is a very small patch that the Government seek to apply to a very large hole.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: I do not think the right hon. and learned Attorney-General put the case too highly when he introduced this Motion. I feel sure everyone in this House appreciates the need for at least two judges. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was very modest in his statement. I agree with what has been said with respect to the difficulty he himself has found in regard to the congestion on circuit, particularly on the Midland circuit, of which I can speak with experience. I cannot see how the appointment of two judges can meet the difficulties on the Midland circuit, the Northern circuit and other circuits to which the right hon. and learned Attorney-General referred. That is the position in regard to the circuits; but when we come to London, there we have what might be described as almost a permanent waiting list. I noticed that in the last term there were 1,447 cases awaiting trial. When this matter was being discussed in the House some years ago the present Solicitor-General made a speech, and drew attention to the number of cases then awaiting trial. I think they approximated to the present figure; the figure he mentioned for 1935 was 1,325, and for 1934 1,052; so the position has not altered very much between 1935 and 1939
That brings us to this point: Any appointment of judges is not likely to settle this matter. There have been very distinguished committees sitting to consider the business of the court and many aspects of judicial administration, and yet, while we are asking for two judges to-night—and there is no doubt the Motion will be passed—it is unreasonable to believe it will meet the position that we all desire should be met. Where there is a large waiting list it presages an enormous delay; and delay in justice, even in big cases, means an enormous loss to litigants, while in cases of personal injury great hardship ensues as a result of the delay. We see it as legislators looking at the matter from an abstract point of view. What is the position looking at it from a litigant's point of view? There are the hundreds of personal injury cases which come before the courts, and there is the length of time which elapses before probably the writ has been issued, and the length of time which elapses before all the interlocutory proceedings are concluded. After the case it set down for trial, six, seven or eight months may elapse before it actually comes for trial. Persons who have been injured are often in a state of nerves, having to wait so long, and wondering whether, when their case comes to trial, they will be successful, and, if they are not successful, what will happen to them.
All that sort of thing aggravates the position of litigants, and in cases where they have suffered great personal injury, the delay which ensues from the setting down of the case until the hearing of the case, has, I believe, almost as bad an effect upon the litigant as the accident itself. Therefore, it is necessary that something should be done to expedite these matters. This is not a new case but one that has been argued in this House time and time again. A learned Solicitor-General quoted some figures of the Council of Justice in 1890 when, he said, there were over 1,000 cases waiting to be tried. That is over 40 years ago. As we have reviewed this matter in this House time and time again, I have noticed that the waiting list has constantly been over 1,000 cases requiring to be heard. This is a matter which is of great importance. Justice is too vitally important to be the subject of parsimony on the one hand or misdirected economy on the other.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I want to speak on this Motion, and therefore I venture to enter into the legal arena. With the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), those who have taken part in the Debate are legal men, and I was rather taken with the public-spirited outlook which they showed. I always thought that lawyers liked delays as it meant more money for them if they could delay a case, but now I want to apologise for having had that view. I believe that the learned Attorney-General will be gratified by the remarks that have been made and will feel that, whenever more judges are required, he will be able to obtain them. It would appear from what has ben said to-night that, if he wanted a dozen judges, he could have them. I want to say a few words with regard to the question of delay in the hearing of cases. I have had occasion to represent a trade union which has had cases down for trial, and I know of the difficulty and inconvenience entailed when it has not been known when the cases would be heard. We had expected that a case might be on the list, say, for tomorrow or the day after, or the day after that. I hope that the judges or whoever control the arrangements for the hearing of cases will take note of this fact and will have some regard for the litigant. They should try to weigh up how long a case is likely to take.
I am a Justice of the Peace and when my colleagues and I review cases in the court-room before we go on to the bench, we obtain a shrewd idea as to how long the cases are likely to last The learned judges should try to arrange the hearing of cases so that litigants may have a better idea when their cases are likely to be called. The waiting causes a tremendous expense to the trade unions, and it must be a tremendous expense to the private litigant who probably comes to London and has to wait day after day not knowing when his case may be called, and all the time his expenses are mounting up. I agree with the Motion which is before the House. I stand for speedy justice, and I agree with those who have spoken. Whenever an application is put before the House for more judges, I feel that I shall be able to support it in the knowledge that it will be in the interests of those who require their cases to be dealt with quickly.

8.51 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): The House will not expect me, after the very favourable reception which the Motion of my right hon. and learned Friend has received to-day, more than very briefly to state the attitude of the Government to the discussion which has now taken place. Every one of the comments emphasised by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will be noted and brought to the attention of those who are responsible for the day-to-day administration of justice. I would say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker)—and we are delighted to see lay people taking part in these Debates—that no one realises more than my right hon. and learned Friend or my right hon. and Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor the essential importance of trying to fix times and dates as nearly as possible. It is one of the things in the administration of justice that is always being met with in this country. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that to fix dates and times would involve a surplus of judges. Of course, the ideal would be to have more judges than there is work for them to do. You must have a certain flow over, and until recent years it has been extremely difficult to convince this House and public opinion that it is not a bad thing to have a surplus of judges occasionally. The impression has been that if a judge was not fully occupied all his time, public time and money were being wasted. Many of us have tried to impress upon public opinion the view that the wastage of litigant's time is much more important than the wastage of judges' time.
Much more has been done than has perhaps been recognised in some of the observations which have been made this evening. I remember an hon. Member for one of the divisions of Leeds saying, in the last Debate that we had on this subject, that in the last few years we have had virtually a revolution in legal procedure as a result of the passing of several Bills. That is true. I would remind the House of some of them. There was the Administration of Justice Bill passed last year. We have extended the jurisdiction of quarter sessions. There is a new Evidence Act, notes are now taken by shorthand writers in practically all the courts, and there has been a voluntary extension of the county court jurisdiction. The effect of all these

advances in administration will be cumulative and will not necessarily be seen for some considerable time. The extension of the jurisdiction of quarter sessions only became possible this January. The application to the Lord Chancellor for the appointment of qualified chairmen could not be effected for the January sessions, but the net result of the provisions of that Act will be to take away a good deal of the criminal work of assize and place it in quarter sessions.
We have to wait a little time until we, see what the net effect of that will be in lightening the work of the assizes, and so making the additional judges available for the trial of other causes. Similarly, there is the appointment of the Third Panel of the Court of Appeal, under which three Lords Justice are available for service in the King's Bench Division when not needed in the Court of Appeal. They were appointed because the work was-sadly in arrears. Those arrears have to be caught up, and when they have been caught up some of that additional judicial strength will be available in the King's Bench Division. That, again, is a benefit that will not be noticeable for some little time.
There are other matters that my right hon. and Noble Friend has had in mind and which he has been recommended to try the effect of which can only be achieved by bringing up the judge power to the strength we are now seeking to bring it to. For example, there are some recommendations which have not been yet carried into effect. The Royal Commission recommended that civil work should be taken at every town on the autumn circuit. The Finlay Committee went further and recommended that civil business should be taken on every circuit at every assize town visited by a judge. It was recommended that a fourth assize should be given to Birmingham, and that Cardiff, Swansea and Chester should be visited by two judges at each assize, and that two judges should visit Exeter, Bristol and Winchester at the autumn assizes.
These recommendations cannot be carried into effect on the existing judge strength. They are certainly desirable things, and with the addition of the judges that we hope will result from the presentation of this Address, we shall move a stage further towards the carry


ing out of those desirable additions to the judicial strength. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into great detail on the points that have been raised. While it is realised that additional judge strength is necessary, neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor I would like the House to be left under the impression that the wider question of effectively improving the administrative machinery is left out of account. As far as possible all steps are being taken to limit the decimating delays to which reference has been made—delays which are in some cases almost inevitable, and in all cases deplorable, and which are to some extent inherent in the vicissitudes of litigation itself. Nobody knows exactly how long a case will take or when a case is going to crack up. We are left at the mercy of all kinds of contingencies. All these matters have a place, and a serious place, in the mind of my Noble Friend. The House may take the assurance that we do not view the present position with any ease and equanimity, or that we shall be content merely with this addition of two judges to the judicial strength. Every administrative avenue will be explored.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that two vacancies in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench Division should be filled, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancies accordingly, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, as amended by any subsequent enactment.

To be presented by Privy Councillors of the Members of His Majesty's Household.

LIMITATION BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

9.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
For the second time in six months it becomes my melancholy duty to move the Second Reading of this extremely complicated and difficult Measure. I do not propose to do so at any great length, subject to the permission of the House, for two reasons. The first reason is that it is a Measure of enormous complexity and the details would be very much better

examined in Committee, if the House think fit to send it there. I am the more confirmed in that feeling, because I took some pains to expound the Bill Clause by Clause on the previous occasion. Therefore, I have furnished some material upon which the Government can be attacked, if necessary, by those who care to refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of last July, column 2158, and so on.
The aim of the Bill is to try and bring some order out of chaos. It is in the interests of the State that you should limit the period within which people may bring actions. That has always been recognised as a sound principle of jurisprudence. You cannot allow people to go on nursing grievances for ever, without asserting their rights. The trouble is that at the present time the field is a wilderness. Different Acts have grown up imposing different periods and limitations for different actions, and the result is a kind of crazy pavement. Into these circumstances the Law Revision Committee made investigations. To that committee, as I said on the previous occasion, a great deal of thanks is due for the voluntary service rendered by very busy professional men, and I say it with none the less enthusiasm with the memory that I was a member of it. The committee was set up in 1934 to report upon this difficult area of law. For two years it was hard at work, and it reported in 1936. This Bill was introduced into another place in June, 1938, and it came here in July, 1938, but was then withdrawn because it was introduced at a very late hour of the evening.
About 20 different Acts of Parliament are here involved, dating back to James I. The matter is further complicated by the fact that whereas a host of Acts limit the period of time within which you can bring an action, other Acts impose disabilities which have the opposite effect. If the disability is that of being in prison, or being an infant, or being of unsound mind, the time within which you can bring your action is extended until the moment that you get out of your disability, and then the time begins to run. Therefore, these two matters work together along very different. and difficult lines and produce awkward and discordants periods of limitation in one or other kind of action.
What we have tried to do, in the first part, is to prescribe, first, a uniform


period for common law action. We fix it at six years. We have done away, for example, with the silly anomaly by which a slander action, where the words were slanderous per se, as we call them in law, would only lie within two years, whereas otherwise it would be in six years. We have fixed a uniform period of six years. In the case of actions upon speciality we reduce the 20-year period which at present exists to 12 years, except for penalties where there is to be a uniform period of two years. In Clauses 4 to 17 we deal with limitation of actions in relation to land. There is not much new law in it: it is practically codifying and tidying up existing law. There is an exception in the case of the Crown and spiritual corporations. The period within which these actions can be brought is reduced from 60 years to 30 years, except in the case of the Crown and the foreshore. That is an exception which does not find any place in the recommendations of the Law Revision Committee, but it has been brought to the notice of the Government after the Committee had reported. It is an exception in favour of the Crown. The Crown can bring an action claiming a right to the foreshore although it has been in private occupation for 60 years; in most other actions in regard to land 30 years is to be the limit. It is obvious that this is the maintenance of a right which is very valuable to the Crown; the Crown should be entitled to assert a right in respect of the foreshore up to the existing period of 60 years.
Clause 18 deals with mortgage debts. There the limitation is to be 12 years and the period now extends to all mortgage debts including mortgages on personalty whereas mortgages on personalty enjoy at present an unlimited period. Clauses 19 and 20 exclude a limitation period to actions of fraud in relation to a trust, and make certain other standardisations. I ought to say a word about Clause 21 which from the public point of view is a Clause that will attract most attention. The position of public authorities is very curious. By the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, you cannot bring an action against a public authority, except under contract, outside a period of six months. Broadly speaking, the proposal of the Bill is that the period should be extended to 12 months.

There is a further matter which, I think, is of almost equal importance. I should say that the extension applies to criminal proceedings as well as to civil. It will not override the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which has to be read by itself and which prescribes its own period of limitation. The existing Act has been construed so strictly by the courts that it probably prevents some actions ever coming into being at all. There is one point of view, which I at present share, that many actions for subsidence cannot be brought against a local authority because by the time the action arises the period of limitation of six months has expired. By a proviso to Clause 21 we have enabled the time to run from the date when the right of action accrued.
There is another matter also in connection with local authorities. We have abolished the existing disability which rests upon a plaintiff where the defendant is beyond the seas. At the present moment if the defendant is beyond the seas the plaintiff can say that he can extend his time of bringing the action until he comes back, and there has been a tremendous amount of learned discussion on the question "when he comes back." There really is no necessity for this disability now. It dates to the days when travel overseas was very different, but in these days by a simple rule of court you can serve people, notwithstanding their being overseas, by the ordinary processes of the court. That particular disability is abolished.
Local authorities are given a benefit which nobody else gets under the disability period and it may be a matter which will emerge for discussion in the Committee stage. Under Clause 22, paragraph (d) in the case of actions by lunatics or children, the period of disability in the case of a local authority is limited to a period of 12 months from the date when the action first accrued. That is to say, that no advantage follows from the existence of the disability. Let me take a case. A child suffers an accident for which a local authority is responsible. The action, if the child has parents in whose custody it is, must be brought against a local authority within 12 months. On the other hand, if a child suffers an accident from a private bus company, the child can commence itself an action the


moment it becomes of full age, that is to say, when the disability finishes. It is a distinct advantage which accrues to local authorities in consequence of an Amendment which was inserted in the Bill in another place. It will be for the Committee to consider this question when the Bill comes before it.

Major Milner: Will the Solicitor-General say the reason for that?

The Solicitor-General: I will put it this way. First as regards the Law Revision Committee. It is vital that the recommendations of that Committee should not be recommendations which trench upon matters of controversy. The work of the Committee would be nullified if we had to present Bills they recommended which aroused party interest or caused great cleavages of opinion. They felt that the Public Authorities Protection Act was part of the deliberate policy of Parliament and that it was not for them to make any recommendation which would, for example, put local authorities on the same footing as private individuals. The Government accepted the Committee's view as being the right one on a non-controversial Bill. I understand that the public authorities are content with the Bill as it is at the present time. When the Bill was in another place, representations were made by the public authorities that this particular disability should be interpreted more favourably in the case of local authorities than it should be in the case of other persons, and the Amendment was inserted in order to meet those representations.
I am reminded that it was thought, in particular, that education authorities would be in a very difficult position owing to the enormous number of children with whom they have to deal. I am sure that is a reason which will commend itself to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. What is being done is this. Suppose that a child is injured and is in the custody of its parents; the parents will, under Clause 21, have one year within which to bring an action against the local authority. In normal cases, the parents will be alert enough to see that that right is exercised within a year. No doubt it would be a serious hardship if an education authority had to wait in the case of a child under five years for 16 years before it knew whether an action was

going to be brought against it. That is the sort of consideration that was, no doubt, in the minds of those who moved the Amendment in another place.
I think the remaining Clauses of the Bill are all of a tidying-up character. They deal with very recondite and complicated matters, and they are, I suggest, matters that can be more conveniently examined in Committee. Because this Bill does something to bring order into a branch of law of immense complexity, because it has behind it the recommendation of this extremely careful and prolonged inquiry by the Law Revision Committee, because it has passed through its stages in another place and once before been introduced here, and because any doubts and difficulties can be dealt with in Committee, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

9.18 p.m.

Major Milner: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General has moved the Second Reading of the Bill in such a persuasive way—if I may say so without offence, almost a soporific way—that one feels inclined to allow the good work to go on and to give the Bill a Second Reading without raising any points on it, but as it deals with matters of very considerable importance. I would like to make a few observations.
I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the matter of the limitation of actions is of very great complexity. I suggest that it would be a very great help if the hon. and learned Gentleman could issue a White Paper, or at any rate make available to the Members of the Committee, in the event of the Bill obtaining a Second Reading, some information as to precisely what alterations are made in the existing law by the Bill. Although I have some little knowledge of the subject, I find it impossible, in a short time at any rate, to ascertain in what cases the present law remains unaltered, in what cases the period of limitation is extended, and in what cases it is reduced. If some information of that sort could be given, I am sure that we should find it useful and that it would enable us to estimate the proper worth of the Bill. Even now, I gather, from a quick perusal of the Bill and from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, that there is still quite a number of different periods relating to different


causes of action, and one would like to reduce the number of periods as much as possible. I hope that some improvement in that sense may be made in Committee.
I am sure that, in general, the House approves the principle of the Bill and appreciates the great and continuing work which the Law Revision Committee is doing in so many important matters which come before the House at the present time. I wish that the Government would take action more quickly on the recommendations of the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman reminded us that in July last he moved the Second Reading of this Bill, but even then it was 18 months after the Committee had reported, and now it is over two years. Surely it should not be impossible for the Government to take action in less time, considering that the matters are really urgent and the alterations valuable. These are matters which are almost wholly non-controversial, and time ought to be found for them. I believe that six reports have now been isued by the Committee, but the Government are two years behind in these matters.
There are one or two points on which I am not quite clear. Obviously, the ideal position is that all litigants should be alike before the law, and that there should be no preference for the Crown, for municipalities or for anyone else. I am not altogether clear about the position of the Crown. My submission is that the Crown as plaintiff or defendant should be in precisely the same position as a private individual. I see that Clause 30 of the Bill states:
Save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided and without prejudice to the provisions of section thirty-two thereof, this Act shall apply to proceedings by or against the Crown in like manner as it applies to proceedings between subjects.
I should like to know in what matters this Act discriminates between the position of the Crown in litigation and the position of the subject. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman could give particulars at a later stage as to the matters in which the Crown has an advantage. I notice also in Clause 30 the following words:
That this Act shall not apply to any proceedings by the Crown for the recovery of any tax or duty or interest …
Much as I wish the Crown to collect all proper taxes and so on, I am not sure

that, if the Crown by neglect or mistake has overlooked the collection of a particular tax, the Crown should be able for all time, as I understand it, to come on to the subject and claim the tax.

The Solicitor-General: That is because the periods are prescribed in the other Acts. They are not affected. The periods of limitation within which action can be brought are prescribed.

Major Milner: And, therefore, there are restrictions on the Crown in that respect?

The Solicitor-General: In some respects.

Major Milner: Then we come to the question of public authorities. Here, I think, probably the great majority of my party would probably hold as strong a view as I myself hold. At present the position is that, unless you bring an action against a public authority within six months, you are for ever deprived of your remedy. Fearful hardship has been caused to quite innocent people by reason of that restriction. It is true that the Bill extends that six months to 12. I am a former member of a local authority and vice-president of the Association of Municipal Corporations. I do not know the exact position of that body, but there may be some speaking for corporations who desire either a reversal of the present law or, at any rate, the retention of the period in the Bill, but I hope the House will eventually accept the position that a public authority should be in precisely the same position as a private individual. I see no reason why that should not be the case. The committee say quite clearly:
We have carefully considered how far it is advisable to interfere with the policy of the Public Authorities Protection Act. That policy is quite clear, namely, to protect absolutely the Acts of public officials, after a very short lapse of time, from challenge in the courts. It may well be that such a policy is justifiable in the case of important administrative Acts and that serious consequences might ensue if such Acts could be impugned after a long lapse of time.
There may be, perhaps, some justification for that, but they go on:
The vast majority of cases in which the Act has been relied upon are cases of negligence of municipal tram drivers or medical officers and the like, and there seems no very good reason why such cases should be given special treatment merely because the wrongdoer is paid from public funds. We do not suggest that the Act should be dispensed with altogether, but we think its effects in two respects should be mitigated.


Obviously they would like to dispense with it altogether. They recommended that the period should be extended to 12 months, and that the time should run from the date of the accrual of the cause of action. The position is clear. The committee thought there was no very good ground for giving this special preference to public authorities but they did not desire to effect any very serious alteration of the law, or perhaps any alteration of the law which might be very controversial. We shall, perhaps, hear whether there is any serious controversy on the point. I have not heard of any, but the hon. and learned Gentleman may have had representations on the matter. Having regard to the frequency with which we are confronted with accidents in which employés of municipalities or public authorities are concerned, there is no justification for public authorities in this connection being put in a special category. As they have more vehicles on the road, possibly, than other bodies, the great majority of claims may conceivably be made against public authorities. If I am run over by a Leeds Corporation motorbus, and have an injury, perhaps, to the head, and do not recover for six months, I am for ever barred from bringing a claim for negligence. That is a very serious denial of a right which His Majesty's subjects should have.
I cannot think of any reason why any preference should be given to public authorities. The Statutes of Limitations were introduced over 300 years ago—I believe the first was in 1623—quite properly, in order to prevent litigation going on ad infinitum and also to prevent stale claims being made, and possibly for the further reason that after a considerable lapse of time it is not always possible to produce evidence on one side or the other which would enable a case to be fairly and properly decided. In the case of public authorities, their evidence is usually the best that it is possible to obtain. Every driver of a bus or tram has to make a report of every accident, and it is kept on record, whereas a motorist who happens to run into someone frequently has no record and no witnesses. That is an advantage on the side of the public authority as against the individual who has had an accident. I hope that matter will have special attention. Public authorities have statutory duties

to fulfil and there may be difficulties in the matter, but there is no justification in this class of case for any special privilege.
I should like to ask whether this legislation will be retrospective. For example, suppose that I do not enter my claim against a local authority within six months of the cause of action accruing—that is, seven or eight months ago—and this Bill is passed into law in another month, making nine months from the cause of action accruing, the Bill gives me 12 months, as at present drawn, and I presume I shall still be at liberty to bring my action against a local authority and take advantage of the change in the law. Then I should like to be assured that no existing privilege or right is being taken away by the Bill. Is any litigant, or prospective litigant, going to be deprived of any existing right? Subject to these few points, as a piece of practical and useful work, following upon a similar piece of work where the law has been also codified, I think the House might properly give the Bill a Second Reading.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. K. Griffith: I should like to add my support to what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on two points. First, I should like to see not only in this Bill but in all Bills of this kind, a preliminary "blurb" such as we have in front of certain Measures giving, as it were, a sketch of the main plot of the story and enabling one to follow it easily. That is particularly necessary in a Bill which is, at the same time, a consolidating and an amending Bill. We should know which is the consolidating part and which is the amending part. Otherwise, one of my hon. and learned Friends might be put into the humiliating position of treating as an amendment of the law, some provision which has been the law of the land since the reign of King Richard II. The other point on which I would support and even go beyond what the hon. Member has said, is with regard to the Public Authorities' Protection Act. I was not sure whether the hon. Member was satisfied with what the Bill does, that is to say with the extension of the six months' period to 12 months and the provision with regard to continuing them. Frankly I am not. I take the view, which the hon. Member did express, that there is no reason whatever for putting a


public authority in a different position from any other litigant. My own local authority may not like that view, but I am bound to state it.
I realise that it might be straining the position to ask too much at the present time and I know the difficulty of getting any kind of agreed Measure on the subject, but I certainly would suggest that we should have some provision which, while making 12 months the general rule, would give power to the court, upon reason given, to extend the time. I think there is precedent for that kind of procedure in other legislation, and I think it would be peculiarly appropriate in this case. I can imagine the most hideous injustices being done, just as much under the 12 months' rule as under the six months' rule. The matter of running down cases has been mentioned. It is not only the case that a person who has been injured may be slow in getting his action started. He may start off with the wrong defendant.
Imagine a case of this kind. An old lady crossing the street is knocked down by a private car. She is considerably shaken and is laid up for a long time. Proceedings are not started rapidly, but in due course a writ is issued. By the time you get to the defence, 12 months has elapsed, or nearly elapsed. Then the defendant says "Yes, it is true that I, the driver of a private car, ran into you, but it was not my fault. It was the fault of the corporation dust cart, which came right across me and the corporation are really liable." What is the poor old lady to do in those circumstances? If she goes on against the private car owner alone, she takes a considerable risk, because the private car owner may have discovered a lot of independent witnesses about whom she, in her dazed condition, did not know anything, and they may swear that it was not the fault of the private car owner, and he will ride off happily on the dust cart, the owners of which are not before the court at all. On the other hand, if the owners of the dust cart are joined as defendants they may say "It is true that the dust cart did it, but you cannot touch us because we are the council of the borough of St. Pancras" or something of that kind. Consequently the party who is really responsible is never brought to court although the plaintiff has proceeded on perfectly normal lines.
Why should a public authority, just because it is a public authority, have any special privilege like that? I agree that a public authority employs a large number of people, and it may be hard for them to find exact evidence about something which has happened a year previously, but it is also hard for other litigants. Suppose that the car which really caused the injury was not the municipal dust cart but a delivery van distributing evening papers. I do not take that example because they are specially liable to cause accidents. Far from it. I think they are very careful drivers. I only take that example because that is a case in which a large number of cars are employed on the road on six days out of seven. Consequently if the owners are asked to find out what happened at a particular point 12 months previously, it will be very hard for them to get evidence—just as hard as it is for the municipal corporation. Everybody is on the same footing in a matter of that kind. I suggest that this is an intolerable situation, and that the Government by the provision which they are putting forward here, although they undoutbedly improve the situation by extending the period, have not really met the point. It can only be met by giving a discretion to the court. The court should be able to consider the circumstances of the case, and while regarding 12 months as the normal period, and even being reluctant to extend it, unless good reason has been shown for doing so, it should have the saving discretion that where good cause has been shown, plaintiffs should be able to get their remedy from the party who is really responsible.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: There are three matters to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. In the first place, I wish to associate myself with the hon. Members opposite in what they have said about the Public Authorities Protection Act. It has been my experience that more than one public authority has deliberately made use of that limitation period in the course of negotiations, in order to lure prospective litigants into protracting negotiations over the period, and has then suddenly produced it as a trump card at the last moment. I feel sure that it is still open to them to do that as long as the limitation period remains as short as one year. Secondly,


I would ask the Government to consider, when this Measure goes to a further stage, the possibility of shortening the general limitation period for ordinary litigants. It is, I submit, absurd that a person should be entitled to bring an action arising out of a motor accident six years after the occurrence of the accident. It is absurd to suppose that justice is likely to be done by the oral testimony of witnesses at such a period of time after the cause of action. In my submission it is an impossibly long period. In fact I have never heard of the right actually being exercised, but the fact that it exists can only, in the last resort, give rise to the potentiality of a grave miscarriage of justice.
The third point which I would suggest is that there should not be removed from the law of limitation of actions the provisions relating to absence beyond the seas. The difficulty of suing a person who is abroad lies not in service but in assets. A shopkeeper who has a cause of action under a contract against a person who has gone beyond the seas is not deterred from suing by inability to sue that person but by the absence of assets in this country on which he can execute judgment. I submit that the Bill is wrong in so far as it seeks to remove the extension period applying to persons who go beyond the seas because the moment such a person returns there exists in the country, almost always, a body of assets against which a creditor can execute. I hope that these three points will receive the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: I am sorry to speak for a second time on the same day, but this Bill deals with a matter on which I have always felt very strongly. I know the origin of Clause 21 of this Bill dealing with the Public Authorities' Protection Act. That was one of the most disgraceful Statutes ever passed. It enables public authorities to commit wrongs with impunity. It originated with a former Lord Advocate, later Lord Shaw. He was persuaded by a very clever depute town clerk of Glasgow who was an intimate friend of my own, to bring in that Measure. When it was passed very little was known about it and it slipped through in a very small House.

It was a dreadful surprise to members of the profession in Scotland when it came to their notice. They could not believe that the great Parliament which was supposed to protect the rights and liberties of the British people could ever pass such a Measure. The same depute town clerk used it pretty cruelly. He would negotiate for a long time till the six months were up and then found on the Act and successfully repudiate all liability. The Act enables public authorities to escape the fruits of their own wrongdoing. I may say that when I used to have a bad case for a man I used to endeavour to lure the opposing solicitor into correspondence, and if I could get him to write argumentative letters, after a certain period I made a tender to him of a much less sum than I thought my man should pay, and offer him his expenses and his client by this time was tired and combat had died down in him and he generally accepted, but I never allowed an enemy to do that with me. I served the writ and negotiated afterwards.
We had a very much better form of law in Scotland which was open to the ordinary citizen. When a man raised an action, it was open to the other fellow to use the plea of Mora, Taciturnity and Acquiescence, that is, undue delay, never raising the matter with the defendant and acting as if he had no complaint to make about it. The judge had the discretion in each individual case to throw him out, and did so, if he thought he had delayed unduly. It was infinitely better than a mere arbitrary limit of time. This limitation for local authorities operated with the most astonishing injustice. Time and again public authorities got away with it, and why should they? They are people with records, clerks, and offices, and everything that has happened has been due to causes which they know. The thing is not sprung as a surprise upon them. One particular iniquity about it is this, that they said that when a public authority got a case set aside, it should be allowed to tax its expenses between agent and client, which means expenses about double the ordinary expenses against the unfortunate person who has lost the case. When introducing the Bill it was said to strike at the speculative action, but it did not do so. It only intimidated the ordinary, respectable


citizen. The speculative person was not going to pay any way, no matter how much costs might be given against him. If you have a responsible client with a responsible income, the last thing you want to do is to lose a litigation for him. You must be very careful because you may have a doubly heavy bill of costs given against him.
There is no justice in it. Why should public authorities which have done a wrong not stand to it? There was recently a man in Scotland who raised an action against one of the Marketing Boards, where a levy had been imposed upon him which he said was ultra vires and not authorised by the Statute, and everybody laughed at him. It went to the House of Lords from the Courts in Scotland. The Lords were severe on the Scotch judgments and said they had decided on the Procrustean principle, that is, they had stretched the Statute to suit their idea of what the Act intended but did not say. The Scotch judges must have had a sleepless night after it. The Lords said, "The levy is a tax. You are going to take one man's income and give it to another man." Lord MacMillan said that if that was intended, it should have been clearly stated and that if it was intended it could not have been stated in a "less straight forward manner," and he said, in effect, "You do not take people's incomes and give them to others without being very clear about it."
It really was a very remarkable decision. This particular board had written one of the farmers to say that if the case was decided against the board, they would have to repay the whole of the levies to everyone. But afterwards they refused to do so and pled that as it was money paid in error in law, it was not recoverable. There were two or three hundred thousand pounds due to the unfortunate people who had had this illegal levy put upon them. So four of them brought an action to have the minutes of the board produced, and their resolutions to levy annulled. That must have been granted in terms of the Lords' decision. What happened? They went before the Court of Session, which had already been dealt with by the House of Lords, and they said, "We are a public authority," and the Court of Session judges sustained that plea. I do not propose to say anything about their decision, but the result was

that those two fellows who were two little farmers were landed in about £400 or £500 costs, and had to pay these before again appealing to the Lords. It seemed to me the board was not anything like a public authority. It was one of the Marketing Boards and they are not public authorities; they are public nuisances. So the poor little farmers could not go to the Lords.
I went to see quite a number of millionaires to raise funds for them, but you cannot get up much enthusiasm even in the bosom of a millionaire to pay a lawyer's bill. I did not go to Lord Nuffield, I may say. I thought of applying to the Wholesale Co-operative Society, who have immense amounts of money to spend on litigation, but I did not get it there. There was this wrong done, and these fellows could not proceed with an action because of this evil Statute. This law should never have been passed and this House should be ashamed to allow another period of time to pass without repealing it. Parliament should say to the public authorities, "You are quite able to stand up and pay for the wrongs that you have committed and you shall not shelter yourselves behind this arbitrary period of time." I say that in Committee this Clause 21 should disappear and the rights of the subject, that for generations we have fought for, should be restored to all citizens.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Hutchinson: I have been listening with particular interest to the account given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) of the origin of this special privilege which is given to public authorities, because I have recently been undertaking a certain amount of research into the question of how it ever came about that public authorities were given the very specially privileged position which they enjoy under the Act of 1893 and which they will continue to enjoy under this Bill, if it becomes law. My researches into this, matter have led me to believe that it is a fact that neither this House nor the other House has ever considered the question of whether this special privilege should be granted to public authorities or not. When the Act of 1893 was passed it came on in this House at a rather late stage in the evening. The Minister who was in charge of it was asked whether it was merely a consolidating Bill or whether


it effected any alteration in the substance of the law. His answer was that it was a consolidating Bill and made no alteration in the law. When one looks at it now one appreciates that that was not entirely in accordance with the facts. When it was passed in another place very much the same thing took place. The Act of 1893 was not, however, the beginning of this special privilege of the six months period of limitation. There was something of the same sort in the Public Health Act, 1875. In the Committee stage of that Measure I find that the clause establishing this six months period of limitation was passed in this House without any discussion. There was, I believe, a similar clause in the earlier Public Health Act of 1848.
My researches so far have not taken me back to 1848, but if this special privilege for public authorities has not been reconsidered, either in this House or in another place, since 1875, I am bound to say that it is high time the House asked itself whether, in view of the increased scope of the activities of public authorities, it is desirable that this privilege should continue to be extended to them upon the same terms on which it was first granted to the small urban and rural sanitary authorities in 1875. I have always been told, although my researches do not confirm this, that the reason this six months limitation was given was because it was considered in days gone by that a local authority should charge to the rate of the year the expenses of that particular year. Accordingly, as the expenses which arose in a particular year were charged to the rate in that year, the claims which were the preliminary to the expenditure should be made within a period of six months so that some provision could be made for them in the rate for the year.
If that is the origin of this special privilege which public authorities enjoy to-day, surely the time has come when the House ought to consider seriously whether the privilege should be continued in the unrestricted form in which it is proposed to continue it in this Bill. When one turns at the report of the Law Revision Committee, upon whose recommendation this Bill has been framed, one is entitled, in reading between the lines, to say that that distinguished committee were rather at a loss to know what the real justification was for limiting the right

of suing a public authority. I am tempted, even at this late stage of the proceedings, to read the passage in the report of that committee which deals with this matter. This is what they say:
We have carefully considered how far it is advisable to interfere with the policy of the Public Authorities Protection Act. That policy is quite clear, namely, to protect absolutely the acts of public officials, after a very short lapse of time, from challenge in the courts. It may well be that such a policy is justifiable in the case of important administrative Acts, and that serious consequences might ensue if such Acts could be impugned after a long lapse of time. But the vast majority of cases in which the Act has been relied upon are cases of negligence of municipal tram drivers or medical officers and the like, and there seems no very good reason why such cases should be given special treatment merely because the wrongdoer is paid from public funds. We do not suggest that the Act should be dispensed with altogether, but we think that its effects in two respects should be mitigated.
Then they go on to suggest the Amendment which is embodied in this Bill. On looking at that passage it seems to me to be plain that this experienced Committee really saw no good reason why a person who has been knocked down by a London Passenger Transport omnibus in Parliament Square should have to bring his action within six months, whereas if he is knocked down by a railway company's lorry he has six years.
Now, this Bill proposes that the period should be extended from six months to 12 months. Suppose that proposal were accepted by the House and the Bill passed into law; will that get over the hardship in which people are placed who desire to bring actions against public authorities? Let me illustrate the point that I am going to make, that the hardship is not overcome by extending the period, by giving the House a few particulars of a case which was recently brought to my notice. It was a case in which a woman brought an action for the death of her husband, who was killed while working on a building which was being erected for a public authority. He was killed by reason of an act which was undoubtedly an act of the grossest negligence on the part of somebody. The difficulty was to ascertain the particular person who had been negligent. On this particular building something like 63 contractors and sub-contractors were employed, and one of them had been responsible for this negligence. Faced with a position of that sort, in which this un-


fortunate woman had to ascertain which of these numerous persons had been guilty of negligence, she was compelled to bring her action against the person who was thought to have control of this building. She accordingly selected three contractors or sub-contractors who, according to the evidence which was in her possession at that time, were in control of the building.
When the matter came before the court it turned out that none of these three persons had control of the building for reasons which it was impossible for her to ascertain at the time she brought her action. The party who had in fact got control was the local authority. An action of this magnitude takes a little time to get under way, and this action had been in course of preparation for something like 14 months. Although in this case the period of limitation was 12 months under the Fatal Accident Act, and not six, for reasons over which this unfortunate woman had no control her action against the party who was really liable was barred by the operation of the limitation period.
I have ventured to put these matters before the House because it does seem to me that one does not get over the question of hardship by merely extending the period of time from six months to 12 months. I hope that on the Committee stage there will be an opportunity of discussing further whether in view of the increased activities and scope of the business conducted by public authorities today there really is any justification for continuing the specially privileged position which they now enjoy. I am bound to say that that position seems to be wholly inconsistent with the general principle of English law which, as I have always understood it, is that no distinction is to be drawn between a person who acts in an official capacity and a person who is a purely private individual. For these reasons I hope that when the Bill goes to Committee my hon. and learned Friend will reconsider Clause 21 and adjust it in accordance with what I believe to be the almost unanimous view of all who have had much experience of the working of the law in its present state.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: After listening to the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman and the discussion since I have been

wondering whether it would be wise of us to pass this Bill to-night. When a Bill comes from the other place I am always doubtful whether we ought to accept it or not. I was prepared to accept this one when I saw from the title that it was a consolidating Measure, but as one looks into it more fully one finds that it also embodies certain amendments of the law, and I am wondering whether, under the form of a consolidating Bill, Members of another place are trying to introduce some important changes. The proposal that the period of limitation in the case of local authorities shall be extended from six months to 12 months has been mentioned. I asked some of my colleagues whether that meant that under the workmen's compensation law a workman would have a right to bring a claim within 12 months, but I have been assured that the extension would not apply to him. It would appear, therefore, that in certain cases the other place is anxious to extend the period within which public bodies may be sued but not to extend the right to all cases. Then there is the question of the foreshore. The hon. and learned Member said it was a difficult question and his explanation was not clear to me, and I should like him to go more fully into that matter. Is it the case, for instance, that if a place like South-port recovered some of the foreshore that at some time or other that recovered land could be claimed by the Crown? In the Interpretation Clause we find this statement:
'Duty' includes any debt due to His Majesty under Section sixteen of the Tithe Act, 1936, and a royalties welfare levy within the meaning of Part III of the Mining Industry Act, 1926;
Looking through the Bill, I admit rather hurriedly, I have failed to find any reference to the Miners' Welfare Fund, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain where there is any reference to that fund in the Bill. On the whole I am very much afraid that we are hardly doing the right thing in passing the Bill to-night. It is a big, comprehensive Measure and came on at a time when no one seems to have expected it, and I should like our Front Bench to assure me that we shall be justified in letting the Bill have a Second Reading.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: We have listened to a number of lawyers expressing their views


about this Bill, and in particular about the limitation as it affects local authorities. The very unanimity of the legal profession to-night has made me rather suspicious. The hon. and learned Member opposite referred to the limitation of six months as an infamous provision. As one who has had 20 years' experience of administration on a local authority, I have never known any infamous conduct on the part of a local authority in connection?with this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I know that members of the legal profession may have a different experience, but I am speaking from inside knowledge of the administrative work of some very important committees. It is said that, so far as litigation is concerned, a local authority has neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be saved, and I think that litigants regard local authorities as a happy hunting ground for large payments of compensation. The misdeeds of local authority transport undertakings have been paraded before the attention of the House to-night, and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) gave some hypothetical instances, but my experience on a very important transport committee has been that the committee deals with compensation claims in a most generous manner. It always tries to keep those cases out of court. It saves much money by avoiding litigation. It never goes into court if it can avoid it, and that is an advantage both to the would-be litigant and to the local authority. It protects the public from the lawyers and from that point of view there is a great advantage.

Mr. K. Griffith: Does the hon. Member realise that one of the things we are trying to guard against is this—that local authorities are so kind and so nice that they keep the matter from going into court until the party has lost his legal right to go to court at all?

Mr. Marshall: I think that charge is entirely over-stated. I served for some years on the Sheffield Transport Committee and I know of no case where a claim has been turned down owing to the expiration of the period of limitation. I am not a member of the legal fraternity and I am speaking merely from the point of view—[An HON. MEMBER: "Of common sense"]—of one who has had some years of administration on a trans-

port committee. You can call it common sense if you will.
A reference was made by the hon. and learned Member to some market levy which was going to be imposed upon a certain individual. I want to put the other side of this matter. I have stated that local authorities are regarded by aggrieved parties as a happy hunting-ground for compensation, and I have in mind a case in which a local authority built a very fine place in which certain wholesale butchers could put their goods and have them locked up. The regulation stated that nobody but a wholesale butcher could go into the place, but on one occasion a certain amount of meat was stolen, and in spite of that regulation the aggrieved party from whom the meat was stolen sued the local authority for compensation for loss of meat. The local authority paid rather than go into court. That is an example of the generosity of local authorities who are anxious to do the right thing and to prevent litigation in such matters. The very unanimity of the legal profession has made me suspicious, and I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to concede the point until the local authorities have had an opportunity of examining the whole position and until a defence can be put up for them in this House.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Lyons: I hope that the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat will not take it as an act of discourtesy if I do not follow him on the many points which he raised. I wish to raise my voice in favour of abolishing this privilege for local authorities, because there seems no just reason why local authorities should be put into a privileged position by which they may well defeat the action of an injured person. The committee which dealt with this matter said that, although for the purpose of administrative acts some protection might be justifiable, there was no real case for giving any special protection in such matters to the local authority. It may very well be that a local authority and an insurance company become so much interwoven that, on the threat of the penalty of forfeiting the indemnity of insurance, the local authority may be forced to plead the Public Authorities Protection Act, to the detriment of a litigant.
I would ask the House to consider whether on any ground at all it can be


fair, just or equitable to deny to the citizen the right against a local authority which he has in every case against another individual. If the defence is there, the public authority will put it forward in the same way as any other defence, and I suggest to the House that it is wrong to give 12 months or any other benefit to a local authority which you do not give to any other defendant. I would go a little further and say that the time has come when any such protection which operates against the citizen should be swept away altogether and local authorities be put in the same position as anybody else who is faced with an action. Now that this matter is being dealt with generally in a somewhat comprehensive Measure I hope that the House will take a step such as will put an end to the unjustifiable privilege which local authorities have and which, in my judgment, can no longer be defended on any ground whatever.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I should like to ask the Solicitor-General a question with regard to Clause 4, which deals with the limitation of actions to recover land. That Clause will very seriously affect the foreshores of this country, in which, as the Minister of Transport will know, I have been interested for a long time. In my view the time has arrived when the foreshores of this country should be entirely under the jurisdiction of the Crown, but it seems to me that, owing to the inaction of the Board of Trade, the foreshores are slipping away from the Crown into the hands of private leaseholders, recreation companies and others. I am very anxious to know what is the meaning of this particular Clause. Whenever such a case arises, we hear all kinds of arguments as to what is the meaning of high tide, neap tide, and things of that kind, and whether the definition of a foreshore is conditioned by the height of the tide and so on. I hope we shall be told something about this Clause, and whether it affects the foreshores that now come under the jurisdiction of the Crown. A little while ago a large area of common land—some hundreds of acres—under the jurisdiction of the Crown through the Duchy of Lancaster, was sold to a private company, quite wrongly as I think, for just a few hundred pounds, and it seems to me that that private company, after a period of 60 years, will have the right to control the foreshore as well.

10.23 p. m.

Mr. Silverman: I should not have ventured to trouble the House with any remarks on the Public Authorities Protection Act had I not been rather stimulated to do so by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Marshall). He put it forward as his most attractive argument that, when he found lawyers in general agreement, it made him rather suspicious. I hope he does not mean that. There is no doctrine of the common law, I suppose, which has done more harm to people of the working class than the doctrine of common employment, and I think my hon. Friend would join with the rest of his party and many other Members of the House in rejoicing to see that doctrine abolished. I think he will agree with me, because he follows the Debates of this House very closely, that on every occasion on which an attempt has been made—usually from these benches—to bring about an alteration of the law which would abolish the doctrine of common employment, he has found virtual unanimity among lawyers in all quarters of the House in favour of the abolition of that doctrine. I did not hear him say on any of those occasions that the unanimity of the lawyers induced him to change his mind.

Mr. Marshall: May I say that I have heard in opposition to that proposal, when it was put forward from these benches, some of the same Gentlemen who have been speaking from the opposite side of the House to-night?

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to debate that with the hon. Member, but I think he is mistaken. I think he will find that the overwhelming majority of the speakers in those debates on common employment were lawyers, in all parts of the House, and I think he will find they were not quite unanimously in favour of its abolition, but that so close were they to unanimity in that sense that the one or two who took a different view were only the exceptions, who proved the general rule. I think that even on workmen's compensation they have been largely in agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It may be that hon. Members are right, and that they were not in agreement. Where they were not in agreement, no one can use their opinions as an argument either way; but the fact that lawyers have been in agreement on a proposal which


the hon. Member considers desirable rather militates against the argument that their unanimity is a suspicious circumstance. In fact, it is not. The hon. Member talked as though what lawyers and others were seeking to do in abolishing this special privilege was something to further their own interests. I think he will agree that lawyers usually get paid anyway. What I think lawyers are anxious, in this Debate, to see is that their clients get something for their money and that they get their rights, whatever their rights may be, against defendants, whether those defendants happen to be local authorities, insurance companies or private individuals.
The hon. Member would not say that where a certain local authority, by some negligent act of its employés, had performed great damage, the local authority, merely because it was a local authority, ought to be exempt from the law which requires such damage to be paid for. When the hon. Member said that local authorities are a kind of milch cow he was wide of the point. Very many of the local authorities affected do not carry their own insurance; they are insured by big insurance companies, exactly as other big employers are, and the benefit, if it be a benefit, does not inure at all to the local authority in those cases, but purely to the insurance company, which has taken the premium to insure the local authority against that kind of risk.

Mr. Marshall: I do not want the hon. Member to build a case on that statement. It is my information that most large local authorities conduct their own insurance.

Mr. Silverman: But the hon. Member must appreciate that his experience in this matter, although no doubt deep, is limited. He is a member of only one local authority. In fact, the tendency is all the other way. There is one big insurance company which exists solely to serve the interests of the municipal authorities. It does no other class of business. It is perfectly true that some local authorities carry their own insurance. It is true also that there are some local authorities—I am glad to hear that that one of which he is a member is among them—would scorn to take an unfair advantage of the privilege which it has under this Act. But to say that because there

are some local authorities who do not avail themselves of this privilege and who carry their own insurance, therefore the privilege itself ought to be preserved, is like saying that there ought to be no law against drunk and disorderly persons because there are persons who are never drunk and disorderly. It is a non sequitur. Nowadays local authorities are engaging in all kinds of commercial undertakings, and the hon. Member and I do not think that they engage in enough. We would like to see their powers extended and local authorities avail themselves to a larger degree of those powers to do these things. But now they are doing it, it is unfair to the public and to people who may be injured, and to other people engaged in the same kind of trade, if they are not to be liable for things done wrong on their behalf in exactly the same way as any other person.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: One of my hon. Friends asked me what was to be our general line to-night in voting on this Bill. As I understand that the Bill is going upstairs to Committee, there is no reason at all, from our point of view, why we should not give it a Second Reading tonight. A very large part of the Bill is consolidation, but there are the points to which the Solicitor-General has drawn attention, and if any Member wishes to take exception to some of them there will be ample opportunity to fight out the matter in Committee. But in view of the point of view which has been widely spread this evening on Clause 21, it would be interesting, quite apart from the legal arguments of hon. Members, if the Solicitor-General could tell us what communications have passed between the Government and, say, the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association, and whether they considered the report of the expert Committee. I should like to know that before we come to consider what our attitude might be on Clause 21 between now and the Committee stage.

10.33 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, may I first of all deal with some subsidiary points? The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner) who opened the discussion, asked why we had been


so long in introducing this legislation and expressed sympathy with the Law Revision Committee in having to wait two years to see this legislation introduced. I was, therefore, particularly alarmed when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) suggested that this matter ought to be put back for a time and reconsidered. The whole of the material upon which this Bill is founded has been embodied in the report of the Law Revision Committee, and it has been available ever since 1936, so that there has been ample opportunity for everybody to know what the proposals of that Committee were. As the right hon. Gentleman indicated a moment ago, the discussion largely revolves round Committee points, and as the Bill is going upstairs, these points can be discussed in full if the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. But I am so anxious to reply to the hon. Member for Leigh that I will immediately approach the three very important points he raised. They will be further cleared up on the Committee stage. The Bill does not touch the position of workmen's compensation. That remains as it is at the present moment, namely, a period of six months, subject to the power to extend the time in case of error and oversight. Secondly, as regards the very important point of miners' welfare, he asked me what the reference was in the definition Clause 31 to "duty," where it refers to the royalties' welfare levy. The reference to "duty" there is to Clause 30, which expressly excludes duties from the limitations of the Act. Arrears of miners' welfare levy can be claimed irrespective of time, because they are a debt due to the Crown, and we are leaving it in exactly the same position. We are not subjecting it to any limitation whatsoever.
He also raised a point, which was raised by another hon. Member, and which has been a matter of general interest, as to the provision about foreshore. Hon. Members have put their case in regard to a matter with which the Committee itself did not deal. "Foreshore" is denned, and this is an answer to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) as meaning
the shore and bed of the sea and of any tidal water, below the line of the medium high tide between the spring tides and the neap tides.
The provision, as now amended, is this. At the present time the Crown can main-

tain the right to the foreshore up to 60 years. Unless user by somebody else has been shown for 60 years, the Crown can make a claim. By Clause 4 we are limiting to 30 years the right of the Crown to bring an action to recover land, cutting down the general period in most cases where the Crown claims land; but in the case of the foreshore we propose to leave the law where it is at present. That is to say, the period within which the Crown may make its claim will still remain 60 years That has been done at the instance of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. We consider it dangerous that the 60-year period should be reduced, as in some cases there might be the loss to the public of their right to the foreshore. That applies especially in remote parts of the coast.
We are confirmed in that view because in Scotland the limitation period is only 20 years, and claims to the foreshore, which extend to over one-half the coast of Scotland, have been admitted by the Board since 1866. The Royal Commission on Coast Erosion recommended as long ago as 1911 that the period applicable in Scotland should be the same period as in England. Fortified with that example from Scotland we have expressly left the law where it is at present, and not cut it down to 30 years as in other claims of the Crown to land. The public interest has been the paramount consideration in doing that. This saving of the Crown's right is wholly beneficent in the interests of the public as against the interests of the individual subject.
I was asked whether the Act is to be retrospective. It is not. On the other hand it is not proposed that it should come into operation before 1940. That is provided for in Clause 34. There will, therefore, be ample time for everybody to acquaint themselves with the new periods of limitation where there are variations made by the Act. I was also asked by the hon. Member what was the position of a person who had a cause of action against a public authority and six months of his time, and more, had expired, but not quite the 12 months that the Act would prescribe. He put to me a difficult question, but I think the answer probably is, in fact I am fairly confident it is, that in such circumstances a person's right would have expired. Under the existing law his right at the end of six months would have expired. On the other


hand, if it was five months, very difficult questions would arise. It is a point upon which we do not want to have any uncertainty, and we shall have to deal with the question in the Committee stage. Hon. Members have suggested that the courts should have power to extend the time in public authority cases. That was considered by the Law Revision Committee and their reasons for not adopting it are given in page 11 of the report. I adopted that view in the committee, but looking at it in another capacity, I am not wholly convinced that the reasons we gave were conclusive, and in view of the discussion which has taken place to-day the matter shall be further looked into.
The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) had two or three complaints against the Bill. He wanted to know why it should be such a long period as six years and mentioned simple cases where six years is more than ample. The whole idea of the Bill is to get a uniform period for actions which are simple and difficult, and while in the instances he gave, cases of accidents, and slander and libel, six years may be more than adequate, there are many cases of great complexity where six years is not too long. He also objected to the abolition of the disability of being beyond the seas, and said that it was quite simple because the moment a person returned the disability disappeared. That is one of the difficulties in the matter. There has been a tremendous amount of learning as to when a person can be said to have returned. Suppose a defendant is beyond the seas and returns in a ship which puts into an English port for ten minutes or an hour, is that a return, and does the disability come to an end although he may know nothing about it at all? It is clear that if you do not abolish the disability of being beyond the seas, you must amend the law relating to return.
I have left till the last the most important matter which has been discussed this evening, and that is the question whether something more ought to be done as regards public authorities. The hon. and gallant Member for South-east Leeds was generous and understanding in recognising the difficulties that a mere Law Officer has in making any pronouncement on the subject, of administration. I have

told the House that these Law Revision Bills have been able to be brought forward hitherto because they do not raise matters of really serious controversy, but I observe that on this matter there is acute controversy even in the party opposite. I know that to be so. Although a case can be made which sounds easy, and to which there is no answer at the moment, as regards local authorities, I know that one of the matters that held up the Bill last July was uncertainty on the part of hon. Members opposite as to the situation in which local authorities might find themselves. A very wide area is opened up by the question of local authorities. It has been pointed out that they have had a curious vested right which other people have not had; they have had it at least since 1893 and probably longer; and it would indeed be a very formidable matter for one with no administrative responsibility to take the responsibility of saying to-night whether, in face of the recommendations of the committee and in view of the fact that we do not desire a controversial Bill, any alteration can or should be made in that position.
What I think I am justified in saying is that this discussion to-night has revealed on all sides of the House a great interest in the topic of whether the special position of local authorities ought to be reconsidered. That is a matter which will certainly occupy the attention of those who are responsible for the administration of local authorities. In particular, I will say that the views of the House will be brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and there will be a further opportunity of discussing the matter in greater detail, after the local authorities also have had notice of the Debate, when we reach the Committee stage upstairs. I hope that with these remarks the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.

MILK INDUSTRY BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

BLIND PERSONS' PENSIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Hope.]

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: On 16th December, I asked the Minister of Health a question regarding the loss of pension in the case of one of my constituents under the Blind Persons Act, and as I regarded the answer as very unsatisfactory, I gave notice that I would raise on the Adjournment the principle involved in that answer. That question was prompted by a letter which I received from a friend of the blind man, who wrote as follows:
Dear Sir, I am writing on behalf of a friend of mine, Mr. Arthur Sterratt, of 4, Harrowby Lane, Farnworth. He has been in receipt of a blind person's pension for several years of 8s. per week. He has now received a written intimation from the committee of a decision of the Minister of Health that his pension is to cease. Would you kindly see into the matter, as it has brought hardship to a very deserving case.
As a consequence of receiving that letter, I wrote to a gentleman who for many years has been responsible for the administration of this Act of Parliament under the Lancashire County Council and he wrote informing me of the position that had arisen with regard to this man—and I suggest with regard to other individuals. His statement is as follows:
I beg to inform you that for some time this man, of whom I have spoken, has had an average weekly earning at the workshops for the blind which amounted to 22s. 1d. and he was paid an augmentation, which was net earned, of £1 4s. 11d. a week to make the weekly income up to £1 7s. Up till quite recently the old age pension committee disregarded the amount that he received as augmentation and, in consequence of his being a married man, halved his earnings, to give him an income not exceeding £31 10s. a year, which entitled him to receive 8s. a week old age pension. The pensions committee disregarded the augmentation because the Pensions Acts provide that, in the case of. a married man, £78 per annum and an amount not derived from earnings should be disregarded when assessing the amount of the pension to be granted to him.
It is the next sentence which caused me to put down my question and which gives me great concern:
The Minister of Health has recently given a ruling that augmentation allowances paid to blind employés at workshops for the blind must be regarded as earnings. Consequently the whole of the £2 7s. a week is now regarded as income and, even when halved, the amount does not entitle him to receive any old age pension.

In view of the fact that the Old Age Pensions Acts for so long a period have been in operation, and that augmentation of £39 a year for a single man and £78 for a married man has been disregarded, it is difficult to understand why the Minister has recently decided to regard augmentation as earnings. Because the handicap of blindness prevents most blind persons from earning a livelihood if they are paid only the amount they actually earn, their earnings are either augmented by local authorities or to a certain extent out of voluntary funds received at the various workshops for the blind. In 1924, when the means test came into existence, when the case had been proved that thrift ought riot to be penalised, it was definitely understood, and put into operation by many local committees, that augmentation of the earnings of the blind worker was not to be regarded as earned income. Many blind persons receive pensions because augmentation was always reckoned as unearned income, and in the circular that was sent out with the memorandum in 1924 an illustration is given of a payment received by an old age pensioner from a benevolent society.
I contend—and the contention has held good at least for 14 years—that augmentation paid either by a voluntary association or by a local authority is a gift from a benevolent society. In April the new Act came into operation and, in consequence, the age at which a pension might be claimed by a blind person was reduced from 50 to 40. Naturally a larger number of the people who were engaged in the workshops for the blind then became pensionable but that larger number is still small in comparison with the number of blind people in the country. There are more people in the workshops between 40 and 50 than there are of 50 and upwards, as one would expect. In the borough of Oldham and the district when the age was reduced, 55 individuals were entitled to claim under the new Act and 40 of the workers received the pension nominally. The corporation, it is true, took the whole of it. It was taken into consideration in their domiciliary relief and consequently the corporation benefited and not the blind persons. Fifteen workers were in the workshops for the blind and these all came under the scheme, and as it has been administered previously they were entitled to the pension. As a matter of


fact, the pensions committee discussed the cases and granted pensions in 15 instances, but the pensions officer took up the position that augmentation was now to be reckoned as earnings. The consequence was that although the committee passed the pensions, the Minister, on appeal, turned down the case of these people. In another case, on 9th June an application was made in two cases and was granted the committee acting as they had done previously, and treating this money as charity rather than earnings. Again there was an appeal to the Minister. The same thing happened in Radcliffe and in one or two other places.
The question now arises why this change has taken place in the interpretation. On 15th July the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) asked a question about augmentation. The answer was that in cases of persons who worked at home, the augmentation which they received, either from a local authority or a voluntary organisation, was not to be regarded as earned income, but in the cases of people who worked in the workshops for the blind, that augmentation was to be regarded as earnings. It seems strange, if the principle of work and earnings and augmentation, whether in the home or in the workshops, is being considered, that such differentiation can be made. In Circular 1306 issued by the Minister of Health, dealing with the question of how the money paid to these people shall be allocated, it is laid down that in making up the accounts for the workshops for the blind only earnings—that which is actually earned by the worker—can be put against the productive side of the balance sheet and that any augmentation must be treated as charity. If it is charity for the purposes of the accounts, it ought to be charity for the purpose of settling whether the individual is entitled to a pension or not. The Ministry's inspector has given rulings that augmentation should be ignored. During the Recess I received a memorandum from the Minister who has been going into this question—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Furness.]

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not want to go through the whole of the circular which

has been issued, but I think there is a complete answer to all the arguments; that have been put into that circular, and I would stress this point, that in the case of an individual who had been receiving under the Old Age Pensions Act a pension that had been granted to him for a period of years, it was never intended at any rate that the application of the new Act should deprive him of that pension. It seems strange to me that after the coming into operation of the Act a circular should be issued suggesting that the legal people who arc advising the Minister have now come to the conclusion that the augmentation payment should be treated differently.
I have been interested in the last two hours to hear the discussion on the legal matters then before the House, and I can understand a little better now why this decision has been arrived at and why for 14 years one method has been good enough and then should suddenly cease to be good enough. It appears that something of what was suggested with regard to the operation of the privilege applied to local authorities has been applied in the Ministry of Health, and when they discovered after 14 years that this question would affect a larger number of blind people, they went back for a fresh legal decision. Whatever the reason may be the fact remains that men have been deprived of pensions who previously have been adjudged by the law of the land to be entitled to them. There has been no alteration in legislation, and I contend that an injustice has been done to these people. I therefore ask the Minister whether he will reconsider the advice which he has received, and whether that which has been regarded by the people who have administered the Act for 14 years is not the right interpretation of the Act.

11.3 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): The case made by the hon. Member is one that, I confess, on the face of it arouses great sympathy, and I have gone into it as carefully as I could, but I would like to say at the outset that it has nothing to do with the application of the new Blind Persons Act that was passed last year. I have here the figures of the increased number of persons who have benefited under that Act. The number of blind persons in receipt of pensions has


increased from September, 1937, to September, 1938, by 5,000, and I think therefore that that Act may be said to be working satisfactorily. The question at issue, however, is a simple one of administration.

Mr. Tinker: Has this increase which the hon. Gentleman mentions gone to the local authorities to compensate them for the point made by my hon. Friend, or have they got it direct?

Mr. Bernays: What I said was that the number of persons in receipt of blind pensions had increased by 5,000 mainly as a result of the Act. We are not discussing the whole question of the Blind Persons Act; it is only incidental. The question that has been raised is the position of the hon. Gentleman's constituent.

Mr. Tomlinson: And other cases.

Mr. Bernays: And others. The case has nothing to do, as has been suggested, with the Blind Persons Act of last year. A pledge was given during the passage of that Act by my right hon. Friend, who is now the Secretary of State for Air, that no blind persons would suffer as a consequence of that Act, and, as far as we know, no blind person has suffered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Yes!"] The case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent arises out of an interpretation of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, which was a consolidation Measure. Under that Act, before a person can receive a pension, he has to satisfy the pension authorities that his yearly means calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act do not exceed £49 17s. 6d.
The issue in this case turns on whether the augmentation allowance paid to a blind person should be regarded as earnings or not, as means from any source other than earnings are, in accordance with the Act, subject to special deductions. I do not think that this augmentation can possibly come under the term of a charitable gift, but even if it did it would be taken into consideration in assessing means. I would call attention here to the First Schedule to the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, where it says that in calculating the means of a person account shall be taken of the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by that person. In this case the hon. Member's constituent was definitely employed by the institution. He was a definite employé of

the institution under a contract of service and required to work in a specified place during specified hours, and the amount of the augmentation paid to him was related to his earnings at piece-work rates. It has generally been held, where appeals have been made from the decisions of local pensions committees to the Minister on the question of augmentation allowances in the case of blind workshop employés, that these allowances should be regarded as earnings. The hon. Gentleman talked as if this was a question of a recent decision. I assure him that it is not. My right hon. Friend is simply following the practice of his predecessors.

Mr. Tomlinson: May I ask how it comes about that this man has been in receipt of a pension for six years and seven different local committees have acted on the assumption which I have outlined?

Mr. Bernays: I fully agree. The hon. Gentleman's constituent has been fortunate in that respect. That is the only answer I can make to that, but this was the first time the Minister of Health had been appealed to on the case, and my right hon. Friend naturally has to carry out the law.

Mr. Tomlinson: May I ask whether an intimation was sent from the Department that appeals must be made in these cases?

Mr. Bernays: No intimation of any kind was sent.

Mr. Tomlinson: If I bring the necessary proof that they have been made, will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to look into it?

Mr. Bernays: I will, certainly. I went into that very question and asked why the matter had arisen and how it was that this man who had had the pension all these years had had it discontinued. I was informed that it had been raised by the pension officer and he had a perfect right to do so.

Mr. Tomlinson: He was told to do so.

Mr. Bernays: I note what the hon. Member says, but my right hon. Friend had to give a decision in accordance with the law. Admittedly there has been an increased number of appeals made and this position is due to the fact that the Act of 1938 applied to a new and younger class of blind persons, many


of whom were engaged in Blind Persons Workshops. In view of this my right hon. Friend was particularly anxious that no injustice should be done, and immediately he sought legal advice on the question whether this augmentation should, within the meaning of the Act of 1936, be construed as not being earnings, but the opinion he received was such that he could not in furtherance of his duty as arbiter do anything else but declare that such augmentation must be regarded as earnings. I am sorry that I cannot give an answer which is more satisfactory to the hon. Member.

Mr. Tomlinson: For the purposes of clarity I should like to know whether, when the Minister sought advice for the purpose of carrying out his duties under the Act, the advice he received was similar to the advice that had been given to his predecessors?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, exactly. It was only because there were a number of other cases and for the reasons I have stated that my right hon. Friend went further into the subject and he received the same advice as his predecessors had received. I should like to say most emphatically that the decision in the case of Mr. Sterratt involves no change in administration or practice, and that it does nothing, directly or indirectly, to deprive blind persons of the benefits that accrue to them under the Blind Persons Act, 1938.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Messer: It appears that even yet the Ministry of Health have not been able to see the principle behind the criticisms which were made while the Bill was going through the House. What was asked was that the basis of assessment should remain the same, but we now find that there are complications. In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, there are cases within my own knowledge where the income of the blind person has been reduced since the Act came into existence. It may be argued that it is not the Act that has done it, but the reduction has come into existence since the Act came into operation.
The reason for that is whereas formerly blind persons committees were able to make an assessment themselves the recipient is now dependent on the assessment made under the Blind Persons Act,

which brings in the question of the allowance made for unearned income and the augmentation of the income. I am not a lawyer, but I have had to earn my income, and therefore I know what is earned income and what is unearned income. Whatever the lawyers may say I know that if I am a pieceworker working in a blind workshop and am paid so much for every basket I make and at the end of the week get 20s.—which is what I have earned—and if because the local authority considers that it is better for my peace of mind and happiness that I should be encouraged to work—because I am not compelled to do so—and encourage me by giving me an augmentation of my income, that certainly is not earned income. That is granted to him in a way that leaves no possible doubt in the mind of any reasonable layman, whatever the lawyers may say, that it is unearned income and should rank as blind person's income in the same way that that income ranks for old age pensions.
I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Health would again look into the argument raised during the passage of the Bill, because hardship has been inflicted by it, although not necessarily in consequence of it. People at the age of 40 are being assessed in a different way from that in which they were assessed before.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: This is a question of augmentation. It is a case in which a man was on piece-work, and he was, therefore, paid so much per article for what he produced. There was no minimum wage. There are men on piecework, who get wages according to what they produce, and the articles are subject to an over-riding provision that if their piece-work earnings fall below a minimum they get a minimum wage. There is no minimum wage in this case. This is a gift. It is said that augmentation is earnings. Is the Minister of Health himself his own interpreter of the Act?

Mr. Bernays: In consultation.

Mr. Griffiths: That a gift of this kind is earnings? It is contrary to the position which exists in parallel cases of persons other than blind people. A gift of that kind made by an employer would not tie deemed by a sighted man to be part of his earnings; surely a blind man should not be treated worse than a sighted


man. Some workers receive gifts for Christmas; would they be entitled to claim that the gifts should rank as part of their earnings? Of course not.
Surely this augmentation ought not to be given a significance by the Minister of Health which no court of law would give to it. Therefore the whole case rests upon the fact that you deem this augmentation to be earnings. That is why the man has been deprived of his pension. The Minister of Health is entitled under the Act—I do not question it—to determine this case; but surely he ought to have regard to the general legal position and to the fact that in the case of a sighted man an augmentation or gift of that kind would not be deemed to be earnings. The employers of this country would sternly resist any suggestion that it was.
I ask the hon. Member to look into this matter again because I am sure that neither he nor any Member in this House desires to see blind persons treated, in a matter of this kind worse than sighted persons.

Mr. Silverman: Was the legal opinion on which the Minister acted that of the

Law Officers of the Crown, or that of an outside authority, of was it a legal opinion furnished by some Member of his own side?

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: Perhaps I may say another word with the leave of the House. With regard to the last question, my right hon. Friend consulted his own legal adviser—the legal adviser to the Department. With regard to the point put by the hon. Gentleman opposite, it has been held in the courts that a gift received in this way by a man or woman can be treated as earnings. Obviously I cannot pursue the matter further to-night; I am merely stating the fact that my right hon. Friend did take legal advice, and that this was the advice he was given. My right hon. Friend is most anxious to administer the Act as sympathetically as possible, and I know that he will take into careful consideration what has been said on the matter to-night.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes after Eleven o'clock.